Dawkins!

[Sunstone]

But personal experience is evidence only to the experiencer.

Not necessarily. If ten people all say they saw an accident on the corner of Boulder and Tejon at 11:00 March 5, 2002, that is surely evidence of some sort that there might have been an accident on that corner at that time. Yet, it is ultimately only personal evidence.

 

[Magic Man]

I think we all need to agree on at least one thing here. Namely, that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I deeply feel that if we first agree to that one indisputable ground rule, then we can make some genuine progress here. Thank you.

I only have one quibble with your phrasing. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but you said that "everyone else" is wrong. Since you and I agree on all of our ideas, I think you meant to say that "everyone else other than Matt" is wrong. With that I can fully agree.

 

[Autodidact]

1) That's not delusion. Delusion is a highly specific word. To use it as Dawkins does is incorrect at best, bigoted at worst. (FTR, I am not calling Dawkins a bigot.)

Here's what dictionary.com thinks it means:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This de·lu·sion

Audio Help /dɪˈlu

ʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-loo-zhuh

n] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.an act or instance of deluding. 2.the state of being deluded. 3.a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur. 4.Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.So it seems to me that Mr. Dawkins is using the precisely correct word to express his opinion that belief in God is a false belief or opinion. Just can't see the bigotry there.Unlike, say, calling atheists immoral, that's bigoted, and I see and read it frequently.

2) To say that there's no supporting evidence is itself arguable.

Yes, that's why he's arguing it. And me.

Personally, I see the countless reports of personal experience as evidence. It's not compelling when second-hand, but it is evidence.

Yes, like evidence for big-foot, the Loch Ness monster, kidnapping extra-terrestrials and Allah. All delusions, IMO.

I would further argue that the person having the experience has compelling evidence to believe in God.

As has a schizophrenic for believing in his delusions. That doesn't make them true.

 

[Storm]

What do you base that on? putting responsibility on victims of rape, particularly children, for their rape seems like a peculiar stance.

Thank you.

I would also point out that many victims of child abuse don't report the abuse for years. I didn't, and it had nothing to do with indoctrination.

 

[Magic Man]

Not necessarily. If ten people all say they saw an accident on the corner of Boulder and Tejon at 11:00 March 5, 2002, that is surely evidence of some sort that there might have been an accident on that corner at that time. Yet, it is ultimately only personal evidence.

That's true.

But if ten people all say that saw a leprechaun riding a unicorn through the intersection of Boulder and Tejon at 11:00 March 5, 2002, would that be evidence to anyone else that there actually was such a thing?

 

[Autodidact]

Actually, no, that argument is easily dismissed with the standard "sometimes the answer is no."

And interestingly, the answer is no at the exact same rate as if no prayer is made, the same as background, random occurrence. So in this definition of "exists," it means the exact same thing as not-existing. That is, prayer works at the exact same rate as not at all. If you believe that praying has any effect outside yourself, you are deluding yourself; the evidence indicates otherwise.

This is why one should study theology before attacking it (or its expression, religion): to formulate effective arguments.

Whoa, that was tough. I needed to read everything from St. Augustine to Karl Bart to answer that one.

 

[Storm]

Here's what dictionary.com thinks it means:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This de·lu·sion

Audio Help /dɪˈlu

ʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-loo-zhuh

n] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.an act or instance of deluding. 2.the state of being deluded. 3.a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur. 4.Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.So it seems to me that Mr. Dawkins is using the precisely correct word to express his opinion that belief in God is a false belief or opinion. Just can't see the bigotry there.Unlike, say, calling atheists immoral, that's bigoted, and I see and read it frequently.

Yes, that's why he's arguing it. And me. Yes, like evidence for big-foot, the Loch Ness monster, kidnapping extra-terrestrials and Allah. All delusions, IMO.

As has a schizophrenic for believing in his delusions. That doesn't make them true.

You have no evidential basis for calling the belief false. Without that, to continually characterize believers as delusional is ad hominem at a minimum.

 

[Autodidact]

Thank you.

I would also point out that many victims of child abuse don't report the abuse for years. I didn't, and it had nothing to do with indoctrination.

So you don't think these priests exploited the children's religious indoctrination to keep their dirty secret?

 

[Magic Man]

What do you base that on? putting responsibility on victims of rape, particularly children, for their rape seems like a peculiar stance.

She's not putting the responsibility on the victims. She's putting it on the religious indoctrination. The victims wouldn't have been so quet about it if they weren't indoctrinated with these ideas about priests and Hell, and such things.

For the record, this is not just a problem with religious indoctrination. It is the same idea with family sexual abuse, and many other things not associated with religion. In this case, though, it is due to religious indoctrination.

 

[Autodidact]

You have no evidential basis for calling the belief false. Without that, to continually characterize believers as delusional is ad hominem at a minimum.

I just gave you plenty of evidential basis for calling belief in any God who answers prayers false. And I'm sorry, but there's no way you can call arguing that someone's position is false is ad hominem. It's exactly the opposite. Ad hominem is what they're doing to Professor Dawkins here.

btw, is it your practice to believe in things with no evidence to support them?

You may disagree that your belief is false. That does not make arguing that it is an attack on you. You may disagree that religious belief is delusional. That does not make arguing that it is bigotry. It's just an argument that you disagree with.

 

[Storm]

Seriously, Auto, what if I said that your love for your partner was a delusion, because queers can't tell the difference between love and lust? You can't prove that you're not deluded, but that doesn't mean you are. Saying it is just a low blow by any standards.

And that, in a nutshell, is my beef with Dawkins. Rather than take the time to formulate effective arguments, he goes for the cheap shots.

 

[Autodidact]

That's true.

But if ten people all say that saw a leprechaun riding a unicorn through the intersection of Boulder and Tejon at 11:00 March 5, 2002, would that be evidence to anyone else that there actually was such a thing?

Yes. Probably not sufficient evidence to accept it without further investigation, but it is evidence. Something had to have happened to cause ten people to report seeing that.

 

[Storm]

And interestingly, the answer is no at the exact same rate as if no prayer is made, the same as background, random occurrence. So in this definition of "exists," it means the exact same thing as not-existing. That is, prayer works at the exact same rate as not at all. If you believe that praying has any effect outside yourself, you are deluding yourself; the evidence indicates otherwise.

Look, I don't believe in the efficacy of prayer myself, and I'm not going to defend it. The point is that it's an ineffective argument.

Whoa, that was tough. I needed to read everything from St. Augustine to Karl Bart to answer that one.

Your condescension does not make the argument any more persuasive. In fact, it just discourages civil discussion.

 

[Autodidact]

Seriously, Auto, what if I said that your love for your partner was a delusion, because queers can't tell the difference between love and lust? You can't prove that you're not deluded, but that doesn't mean you are. Saying it is just a low blow by any standards.

And that, in a nutshell, is my beef with Dawkins. Rather than take the time to formulate effective arguments, he goes for the cheap shots.

I'd think you weren't very bright. After all, who is the leading authority on one's emotional state, if not the person experiencing the emotion? However the word "God" does not refer to an internal emotional state. It purports to refer to an external, objective reality. That's where we can start talking about delusions.

btw, someone at TWeb did tell me that whatever I feel for V., it couldn't possibly be love. I told her I was sorry she knew so little about love.

 

[Storm]

So you don't think these priests exploited the children's religious indoctrination to keep their dirty secret?

I think it's a cheap ploy to phrase your argument in such a way that I have to either agree with you or defend a child abuser, and I'm not going to play along.

Show me a reputable set of statistics indicating that children abused by priests are more likely to keep silent than children abused by other trusted adults, and I'll admit you have a point.

 

[Storm]

I'd think you weren't very bright. After all, who is the leading authority on one's emotional state, if not the person experiencing the emotion? However the word "God" does not refer to an internal emotional state. It purports to refer to an external, objective reality. That's where we can start talking about delusions.

btw, someone at TWeb did tell me that whatever I feel for V., it couldn't possibly be love. I told her I was sorry she knew so little about love.

And that would be a generous assessment. So, how to assess Dawkins' use of the same term? He is, at best, being deliberately inflammatory.

 

[Storm]

However the word "God" does not refer to an internal emotional state. It purports to refer to an external, objective reality. That's where we can start talking about delusions.

Fine. Provide evidence that GOd doesn't exist, and you can fairly call belief in God a delusion.

 

[Autodidact]

Look, I don't believe in the efficacy of prayer myself, and I'm not going to defend it. The point is that it's an ineffective argument.

But it's not. There is strong evidence that there is no God who answers prayers. Therefore belief in any such God is mistaken, wrong, false, a delusion. What's wrong with that argument?

Your condescension does not make the argument any more persuasive. In fact, it just discourages civil discussion.

Read back to the post I'm responding to. Yours, that is. Condescending? Just a tad?

 

[Autodidact]

Fine. Provide evidence that GOd doesn't exist, and you can fairly call belief in God a delusion.

I already provided strong evidence (and can cite studies) that any personal God who answers prayers does not exist. As for a God who does not intervene in the real world--no evidence is possible, nor is it necessary. That God is defined as non-existent in our world.

 

[Sunstone]

That's true.

But if ten people all say that saw a leprechaun riding a unicorn through the intersection of Boulder and Tejon at 11:00 March 5, 2002, would that be evidence to anyone else that there actually was such a thing?

I would take it as evidence that something caused ten people to think they saw a leprechaun at that time and place, but I would not take it as strong evidence that leprechauns exist because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and even ten people claiming to have seen a leprechaun is not evidence enough.