What scholars say about "The God Delusion"

"The God Delusion makes me embarassed to be an atheist..." -- Philosopher Michael Ruse

Richard Dawkins has a huge fan base. His book, "The God Delusion" was a runaway bestseller. But what to real scholars have to say about the philosophical arguments that Dawkins presents against the existence of God? They are less than impressed, to say the least.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheism
• dawkins
• god
• delusion
• Christianity
• philosophy

[danielodors]

I can make the same argument you made for the "invisible pink unicorn", which is also said to be spirit. Supposing god exists, what brought him into existence?

[grammastola]

@danielodors That is a good question, but one that is irrelevant to the scope of this video. Note that the video specifically discusses the problems with Dawkins' arguments. It does not purport to prove God's existence; quite the contrary, it points out that even ATHEIST scholars recognize the errors in Dawkins' thinking.

As for what brought God into existence, that is covered by the Kalam cosmological argument and other cosmological arguments we can cover some other time.

[PalulukanMakto]

@grammastola actually, the video does NOT discuss any problems with Dawkins' arguements. Can you point me in the direction of ONE atheist scholar that disagrees with Dawkins? There actually is NO arguement that even comes CLOSE to explaining how god would create himself, if he existed.

[grammastola]

@PalulukanMakto With all due respect, I don't think that you were paying attention. I specifically cited Michael Ruse, for example -- a scholar, a philosopher and the world's foremost atheist debater. You also have H Allen Orr, another atheist scientist-philosopher. In contrast, scarcely an atheist philosophers have come out to support Dawkins (Daniel Dennett being the notable exception).

[grammastola]

Respond to this video...As for your comment that no argument explains how God would create himself - with all due respect, this shows that you haven't studied the literature on this topic. Theists do NOT typically claim that God created himself; rather, they say that God is eternal and uncreated.

Besides, your objection is irrelevant. The point of this video is that Dawkins' arguments are illegitimate. The question of whether God exist is vital, but it's another question altogether. 

[Entertainmentwf]

I am sorry but, I listened to this very clearly and carefully and I you can make a pretty big list of assumptions you have made. You accuse Dawkins of assuming a lot when your whole point is an assumption. How do you assume God is a spirit to begin with? For example: Eastern byzantine churches think god is three forms for instance:the father, son, and the holy spirit.

God's existence is highly improbable.There is NO evidence for this claim.As I would discuss,it is asymptotically unprovable.

[grammastola]

@Entertainmentwf I have addressed that several times now. As the creator of all things material, God cannot be material himself; which makes him a spirit. Second, Dawkins claims to disprove the Christian God, which is spirit in nature. For his objection to be valid, he cannot assume a material deity. Even his fellow atheists -- the philosophers I mentioned -- noted this fallacy in his reasoning, even though they themselves reject God.

[PAULOcbi]

Dawkins` book is meant for the majority of people on this planet who happen to be un-read and without a post-secondary education,for sales basically.This argument that it is sophmoric is stupid.

[Youdamana]

Like Dr Anthony Rizzi, a distinguished physicist you are pointing out how vulnerable people in our culture are because the philosophical underpinnings of arguments are lost in the slippery rhetoric. You are making very fair and reasonable statements that are quite true. Dawkin's appeal is certainly not on an intellectual level. He's a nearly complete ignoramus in such matters and can convince only people who are similarly uneducated. His argument from complexity actually disproved atheism.

[Birdieupon]

@daleshankins

"Science is not a philosophy."

Please provide me with evidence for a scientific experiment which doesn't presuppose logic, rationality and, specifically, the laws of causality and universality.

[happyhammer43]

oh dear what a load if nonsense.........i was bored after two minutes!!