Quake3World

This is a simple, thought-promoting article (with suggestions for further reading) that touches on several important concepts that many people think are hard to grasp (or won't because of "beliefs") on evolution, the big bang, DNA, geology, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.

There's stuff in Paul Callaghan's head that could make your brain hurt, but he would rather save you the pain. The Victoria University professor is a world-leading physicist who has been showered with academic prizes, but alongside his work in the arcane field of nuclear magnetic resonance, Callaghan has developed a sideline as a science communicator, including stints on Kim Hill's Radio New Zealand show.

He is one of a lamentably rare breed who not only understand what Einstein and Darwin and Schrodinger were talking about, but can convey it to those of us who struggle to put torch batteries in the right way around; his efforts to bridge the gap between boffins and boofheads were one of the reasons he was last night awarded the Blake Medal for leadership.

Here, he takes up the invitation to tell Adam Dudding about the concepts that everyone should understand, and why they should bother.

Clicky

A quick question to anyone else: who here has read "The God Delusion" and what do you think of it?

"boofheads"

GONNAFISTYA wrote:A quick question to anyone else: who here has read "The God Delusion" and what do you think of it?

i've read bits and frankly, i'm coming around to the marxian view that religion, including its actual content, tone and intensity (i.e. character), is a product of environment in the broadest sense, physical, social, economic, political etc, and therefore blabbing on about its internal absurdities and explanatory inferiority vis-a-vis science à la dawkins/dennett is totally missing the point

for instance, just off the top of my head, anyone ever noticed the very different character of, on the one hand, the desert religions (christianity, judaism and islam), and on the other hand buddhism, a religion which originated in the fertile plains of india?

p.s.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:A quick question to anyone else: who here has read "The God Delusion" and what do you think of it?

I still need to finish it. He makes some good points but so far he really hasn't told me anything I didn't already know or agree with. The book is targeted to people who actually believe but yet his tone towards religion would make me put the book down had I not already been atheist.

Condensed version: Religious people are idiots who are poisoning the world with hypocrisy and invalid logic. God can be proven statistically improbable more so than he can be proven statistically probable. I love Darwin. I love quoting people. I really love Darwin. The end.

one time i read a series of uni texts the same subject that spaned decades.

i learned alot obout tings

Dawkins brings up some valid points, but his intense hatred for organized religion takes away from his good points in the book. He also focuses on disproving the god in the white robe with a beard who sits on clouds, which is fucking retarded to begin with.

plained wrote:one time i read a series of uni texts the same subject that spaned decades.

i learned alot obout tings

was it eric hobsbawm's epic 10-volume masterpiece "a complete and utter history of not making any fucking sense whatsoever"? because that i would believe...

I haven't read the God Delusion, but I did read a Time interview about his arguments, and yeah... he loses some credibility by focusing against the creationist Christian god. He didn't have any real good arguments for absolute proof against all possible types of higher powers.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:A quick question to anyone else: who here has read "The God Delusion" and what do you think of it?

You would enjoy it, because many parts of the book seem like a more polished version of comments you would make about religious people. He's got a pretty sharp wit.

Honestly I thought it was a great book.

A lot of people think he's too pointed with criticisms to attract any normal religious people. But I don't think his target audience is really the average religious people of the world; I think he is speaking more to his fellow scientists who compartmentalize their brains on the subject and/or refuse to take a stand, along with other well-educated people who do the same, and especially those who are on the fence.

werldhed wrote:I haven't read the God Delusion, but I did read a Time interview about his arguments, and yeah... he loses some credibility by focusing against the creationist Christian god. He didn't have any real good arguments for absolute proof against all possible types of higher powers.

That isn't his purpose. He actually concedes in the book that he could conceive of himself believing a god exists -- all his points go toward showing that the burden of proof rests on the believers, as opposed to the non-believers.

About his focusing on the creationist christian god... He actually focuses on the god of the Abrahimic belief system as a whole, which encompasses christianity, islam and judaism -- the overwhelming majority of religion on the planet.

I think his points are very valid. You really have to read the book to get past other people's personal takes on it. The subject is so charged, nearly any kind of review you read on it will be strongly biased by the reviewer's personal beliefs.

As I've said before though, his arguments aren't without their faults. But they still have a lot more merit than many people would have you believe.

seremtan wrote:for instance, just off the top of my head, anyone ever noticed the very different character of, on the one hand, the desert religions (christianity, judaism and islam), and on the other hand buddhism, a religion which originated in the fertile plains of india?

p.s.

Oooh, never thought of it like that.

seremtan wrote:i've read bits and frankly, i'm coming around to the marxian view that religion, including its actual content, tone and intensity (i.e. character), is a product of environment in the broadest sense, physical, social, economic, political etc, and therefore blabbing on about its internal absurdities and explanatory inferiority vis-a-vis science à la dawkins/dennett is totally missing the point

I'm not sure that it's missing the point at all. Harris and Dawkins both concede that it's a product of environment (and the human mind), in their own ways. That doesn't mean it's weaknesses and faults shouldn't be talked about.

seremtan wrote:for instance, just off the top of my head, anyone ever noticed the very different character of, on the one hand, the desert religions (christianity, judaism and islam), and on the other hand buddhism, a religion which originated in the fertile plains of india?

Yea I've thought about that quite a bit. And it makes perfect sense in the context that religion developed as a way for people to bring order to their lives out of a complex world.

But with your image of the Architect dood there, I'm not sure if this is the way you were headed or not....

the architect was just me taking the piss out of myself for saying "vis-a-vis"

R00k wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:A quick question to anyone else: who here has read "The God Delusion" and what do you think of it?

You would enjoy it, because many parts of the book seem like a more polished version of comments you would make about religious people. He's got a pretty sharp wit.

Honestly I thought it was a great book.

A lot of people think he's too pointed with criticisms to attract any normal religious people. But I don't think his target audience is really the average religious people of the world; I think he is speaking more to his fellow scientists who compartmentalize their brains on the subject and/or refuse to take a stand, along with other well-educated people who do the same, and especially those who are on the fence.

I've read it...twice.

It is a great book that utterly destroys the PROBABILITY of the existence of God and doesn't do a damned thing about DISPROVING the existence of God (like some people have posted) because that's not the point of the book.

But I have to disagree with your point about him speaking more to his fellow scientists instead of average religious people of the world. He is an excellent writer and presenting his arguements in the same manner that people would talk about movies or baseball. The very fact that people think he's too brash proves beyond a doubt another point of his book: that religion gets entirely too much respect when it deals with looking at it in a reasonable, critical manner.

Actually, IIRC, the main point he's making to his fellow scientists is to stop using the world "God" in their descriptions of their theories...especially the atheist scientists like Einstein.

Big Kahuna Burger wrote:Dawkins brings up some valid points, but his intense hatred for organized religion takes away from his good points in the book. He also focuses on disproving the god in the white robe with a beard who sits on clouds, which is fucking retarded to begin with.

werldhed wrote:I haven't read the God Delusion, but I did read a Time interview about his arguments, and yeah... he loses some credibility by focusing against the creationist Christian god. He didn't have any real good arguments for absolute proof against all possible types of higher powers.

Jesus.

BKB...Dawkins does not have an "intense hatred for organized religion", he has an intense hatred for people who choose NOT to use their brains. If you've read it, read it again. FFS.

werldhed...the reason he focuses on the creationist Christian God is - as he clearly states in the book - it is the religion he is most familiar with and therefore is the one he is most qualified to argue against. As ROOk has pointed out, the book deals with all religions in all its forms and - as I've already said - his book isn't about disproving God, it's about looking at the probability of God's existence.

Btw, werldhed, read it. It truely is cathartic.

are you kidding? i bet he was touched by clergy as a child.

the god delusion was a sad little diatribe that really did the ID movement a lot of favours,
it didnt bring any credit to dawkins though as it was really just one big long rant and not a thorough critique of religion at all, others have written far more reasoned and clearer critiques of religion imo

seremtan wrote:

S@M wrote:the god delusion was a sad little diatribe that really did the ID movement a lot of favours,
it didnt bring any credit to dawkins though as it was really just one big long rant and not a thorough critique of religion at all, others have written far more reasoned and clearer critiques of religion imo

Really, who?

That seems like a pretty narrow critique for such a broad book.

Michael Ruse for one,

Not only are there better writers,
Dawkins is not writing to reach any middle ground, eg calling pope JP II a hypocrite for declaring in favour of Darwinism and saying he prefered an honest fundamentalist; which he plainly does not! - just one example of his lack of depth in approaching religion in this book.
The blind watchmaker was a far better read.
the point (gky) is not whether God is probable, it is whether he is actual, Dawkins fails to grasp this.

Hannibal wrote:

it's striking how even today, someone calling themselves an atheist has this vague frisson of danger to it, as if it were ultra-radical and subversive, even in a place like western europe, where religion is on the wane (except amongst the islamic hordes)

S@M wrote:Michael Ruse for one,

Not only are there better writers,
Dawkins is not writing to reach any middle ground, eg calling pope JP II a hypocrite for declaring in favour of Darwinism and saying he prefered an honest fundamentalist; which he plainly does not! - just one example of his lack of depth in approaching religion in this book.
The blind watchmaker was a far better read.
the point (gky) is not whether God is probable, it is whether he is actual, Dawkins fails to grasp this.

The point (as I said above) is not whether he is actual OR probable, as much as the fact that the burden of proof is on the believer. After that point is established, then the probability is used to further increase the burden of proof, and when you are finished the burden is nearly insurmountable, without seeing god physically float down from the heavens with your own eyes.

It's easy to dismiss what he says because of the language he uses. He doesn't pretend to pull any punches, and you're right that he does not write to reach for middle ground. I don't see a problem with this personally -- in the same way I don't believe the Democrats should be reaching for "middle" ground, when the middle is defined by the right to begin with.

I will admit though that he does get carried away with the language at times. I have actually seen him in a couple of interviews where he has stood by his points in the book, but had to back off just a little from some of the more vitriolic statements he's made, and pare them down to the meat of what he believes about the subject before the discussion could continue. Which is fine, because he's willing to do that so the discussion can continue.

rofl

R00k wrote: The point (as I said above) is not whether he is actual OR probable, as much as the fact that the burden of proof is on the believer. After that point is established, then the probability is used to further increase the burden of proof, and when you are finished the burden is nearly insurmountable, without seeing god physically float down from the heavens with your own eyes.

Placeholder for 'burden of proof' dealio...I'll try to get to it tonight if I have time.