Assertion: (The God Delusion, p. 4) “…delusion [is] ‘a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder’. The first part [of this definition] captures faith perfectly. As to whether it is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig … when he said, ‘When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.’ … Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument.”Response: On what basis does Mr. Dawkins separate himself from the possibility of being likewise deluded? Yes, there are people for whom faith is a blindly accepted belief devoid of the need for evidence. Likewise, there are atheists, apparently like Mr. Dawkins, who fully admit that they could never be convinced of the existence of God, regardless of evidence produced to the contrary. Is it too much to ask that, instead of mischaracterizing the position of his opponents, Mr. Dawkins would instead engage the arguments of those who do not accept their faith blindly? Can Mr. Dawkins offer an example of what amount of evidence it would take to convince him to change his belief? Some like him claim that no amount of evidence would convince them -- proving that their atheism is not intellectually based, but rather volitionally or emotionally based.
I would also offer that many who profess atheism could likewise be accused of suffering from a psychological disorder stemming from the absence or abuse of the father figure in their lives (see: Vitz, Faith of the Fatherless). If it is acceptable to see religion as a compensatory psychological disorder, fair play would demand that atheism should also be subjected to the same test.
7 comments:
"Likewise, there are atheists, apparently like Mr. Dawkins, who fully admit that they could never be convinced of the existence of God, regardless of evidence produced to the contrary."
Please quote where Professor Dawkins has stated this. I am familiar with his work and his talks, and I have never heard him say this. In fact, I have often heard him say the exact opposite.
The reason atheism isn't a delusion is because it isn't the belief in anything. It is the lack of belief in something due to lack of evidence.
Now, if there is a massive amount of evidence and someone lacks belief, then they could be said to be delusional. If someone said, perhaps, that they didn't believe in horses.
But the last we checked, there was no good evidence for any god...let alone your specific one.
If that changes, let us know.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment ... while you are correct in your definition of atheism, it is disingenuous to say there is "no good evidence for any god." That is pure nonsense.
The Big Bang is evidence for a transcendent beginning (and therefore cause) for the universe. Einstein recognized that implication and changed his GR equations to do away with the implication.
The level of design required to support complex life is recognized by even the most ardent atheists. Recognition of that fact leads them to advance unprovable nonsense like the "multiverse" to explain the implication away.
I could go on but the point is that there IS evidence for God. You may not like it. You may reject it. That's your choice. But to say there is "no evidence" that is consistent with the idea of God is naive at best, disingenuous at least -- and completely in line with my assertion that some (not all) atheists reject the idea of God despite any amount of evidence to the contrary.
Thanks...
"The Big Bang is evidence for a transcendent beginning (and therefore cause) for the universe."
No, it actually isn't. The Big Bang is evidence for the Big Bang. We have no knowledge of what happened before it.
The second law of thermodynamics (matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed), however, suggests that the universe existed in one form or another before the big bang.
"The level of design required to support complex life is recognized by even the most ardent atheists."
I literally have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If we're talking about biology, evolution does a great job of explaining any perceived 'design'.
I would ask that you name these ardent atheists you claim agree with you.
"But to say there is "no evidence" that is consistent with the idea of God is naive at best, disingenuous at least"
Not disingenuous at all. There is no evidence consistent with the idea of a god. What there is are gaps in our knowledge.
Some choose to fill those gaps with god as an explanation. But there isn't any good evidence to support god as an answer in those gaps.
"No, it actually isn't. The Big Bang is evidence for the Big Bang. We have no knowledge of what happened before it."
I didn't say we did know what happened before it. I said it is consistent with being an effect that implies a transcendent cause -- or are you of the persuasion that sees the universe's beginning as being without cause?
"The second law of thermodynamics (matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed), however, suggests that the universe existed in one form or another before the big bang."
Correct. And this, in conjunction with the first law, AGAIN implies a beginning to all matter, energy, space and time -- effects that imply a powerful, transcendent cause for their coming into existence.
"I literally have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If we're talking about biology, evolution does a great job of explaining any perceived 'design'."
Let me slow down for you so you can try to understand. I am not talking about biology or evolution. I am talking about the level of specified complexity that exists in the cosmos that has to be just right to allow conditions in which life could originate and be sustained.
This is called the anthropic principle and IT IS THE REASON that cosmologists created the multiple universe (MU) hypotheses (of which there are several) in an attempt to explain how the universe got this way.
FYI -- it wasn't theists who came up with MU. Why don't you tell me the motivation for MU among physicists/cosmologists? We're all waiting to hear your explanation.
"There is no evidence consistent with the idea of a god. What there is are gaps in our knowledge."
Your (limited and not very "freethinking") opinion.
As I said before, just because you say it is not consistent with theism does not make it true. For someone whose name links me to a "freethinker" website, I am surprised (OK, not really) by your inability to think freely about all possible explanations and consider them fairly.
Reminds me of Michael Shermer -- the self-proclaimed "skeptic" who is never skeptical of naturalistic explanations for ANYTHING.
Interesting. Again, thanks for the comment.
Bob
"Correct. And this, in conjunction with the first law, AGAIN implies a beginning to all matter,"
Only if the universe is a closed system. We have no reason to believe that the universe is a closed system, and therefore any 'beginning to all matter' is moot. There is no beginning, only change.
"I am talking about the level of specified complexity that exists in the cosmos that has to be just right to allow conditions in which life could originate and be sustained."
. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. -Douglas Adams
Like the puddle, you assume that because you exist that the universe was somehow made perfectly for you. When in fact, the universe (the puddle's hole) exists without you, and through natural processes you conformed to live in it.
"As I said before, just because you say it is not consistent with theism does not make it true."
And just because you say it is consistent with theism does not make it true either.
"I am surprised (OK, not really) by your inability to think freely about all possible explanations and consider them fairly."
I am surprised you assume I have not thought freely about all possible explanations. I have.
Just because I find them to be bunk does not mean I haven't given them a shot.
"Reminds me of Michael Shermer -- the self-proclaimed "skeptic" who is never skeptical of naturalistic explanations for ANYTHING."
Again, you pretend to be a mind reader. I've spoken to Shermer personally, and he shows a great deal of skepticism for everything. When things have evidence, he tends to believe them.
I'm sorry, but the things you believe in don't have evidence supporting them. I'm sure that's frustrating for you. But it's just the way it is.
"Only if the universe is a closed system. We have no reason to believe that the universe is a closed system ..."
So do you deny that the first law of thermodynamics is true?
Concerning your puddle example ... imagine you come home from a business trip to find your wife alone in bed in the middle of the day and acting very strangely. As you unpack your suitcase and begin to put your clothes away, you open your closet and find a naked man hiding inside the closet. You ask for an explanation and he replies, "Well, everybody has to be someplace."
I assume that by your logic, you would you also agree that this is an acceptable explanation for his location?
And ... you never answered ... for what reason have cosmologists/physicists proposed multiple universe theories?
Just to help out, I'll give you one: "The idea [of MU] seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations." (Max Tegmark -- "Infinite Earths in Parallel Universes Really Exist," May, 2003 issue of Scientific American)
Considering that these infinite universes are, by definition, unobservable, exactly what "astronomical observations is Tegmark referring to?
"And just because you say it is consistent with theism does not make it true either."
Sorry but this is pure nonsense. As I've said already, you may choose to deny it or ignore it or consider it pure poppycock. That's your choice. But everything I have stated is completely consistent with theism. Even if I am wrong and theism is false, the evidence is consistent with the theistic hypothesis. Just because you don't like the implications of something does not render it false.
"... I've spoken to Shermer personally,"
Wow. Impressive but irrelevant.
I've read Michael Shermer personally and the ONLY thing he does not question is naturalism (that and his own skepticism of course)
"I'm sorry, but the things you believe in don't have evidence supporting them. I'm sure that's frustrating for you. But it's just the way it is."
I'm sorry but the things you believe in are equally devoid of evidence and therefore nothing more than the same wish thinking of which you accuse me. I know that is probably frustrating for you to admit, but that's just the way it is.
Back to the puddle example...
The other flaw in your analogy is that puddles don't "wake up." Puddles are not conscious beings. Your puddle is purely explained by naturalistic phenomena. Agreed. But you have a LONG WAY to go to attempt to offer a naturalistic explanation for human consciousness.
And, oh by the way, if you think you have a naturalistic explanation for human consciousness, that would mean that your thoughts are nothing but the random outcome of an irrational, meaningless process.
In other words, you believe that the only possible, rational explanation for human consciousness is an irrational one.
So why should I believe ANYTHING you say or think?
Post a Comment