I decided to post on a few issues that were more observational in style rather than completely confrontational (as were my comments before).

“What is most extraordinary about this attack from Dawkins is his utter conviction that people of religion all truly believe in that ’sort’ of deity.”

Assuming people believe in the Christian God is described in the New Testament (or old) then, yes, they do believe in that sort of deity. Reference to http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html and associated pages. Dawkins is talking about a God that the majority of Chrisitans believe in and staying “only extremists believe that” is not addressing the point he is making. Believes don’t usually think of their God as having unfavorable characteristics (resulting from self-serving bias), but Dawkins finds God lacking in a few areas. For example the Catholic Pope’s attributes on Women, homosexuals, etc.

“But of course, there are those Christians who hold a literalist view of Genesis and who happily and sometimes ignorantly maintain that their view is the correct one. This is just grist to the mill for Dawkins of course who can then merrily debunk them as delusional members of the lunatic fringe of humanity.”

You are implying that about 47% of Americans are on the lunatic fringe on humanity! Although amusing, I would not call it a fringe but more like a significant minority.

It is pretty likely that the authors of Genesis, specifically the creation account, chose [‘It could have been like this’] and provided an answer that they hoped would satisfy the enquiry.

“With the unknown, one is confronted with danger, discomfort, and care,—the first instinct is to abolish [wegzuschaffen] these painful states. First principle: any explanation is better than none.” Nietzsche.

Myth making is not a good method of explanation unless you are lucky – its better to admit a gap in our knowledge.

Another criticism of Dawkins is that having made this appeal to a future where science can show everything and knows all that is true, he is still unable to answer the question that once Liebniz posited ‘Why is there something, rather than nothing?’

That question has been bugging me and I have thought of a few points.

  • The question presupposes that the world had a “choice” to be “something” or to be “nothing”. The questioner should first ask “Could the world have been nothing, rather than something?”
  • The question presupposes that there is a reason why there is something. The questioner should first ask “Is there a reason why there is something, rather than nothing?”
  • Wittgenstein would say the language game we are in has just defined the question into existence. To be stumped by this question is just a misuse of language and with analysis, simply dissolves. (Apparently.)
  • Science never claimed to answer “why” questions. It is rather good at “how” questions though. Again we encounter the “is-ought” problem of Hume.

“Read in context [the Quran] becomes surprisingly less hostile.”
This makes me question how holy books are accessible to an average reader (or anyone at all). There may be historic context that you are not aware of that inverts the meaning of any passage or commandment. I am not saying we should totally ignore context but the historic context can be subjective or controversial. What certainty does a book have if we cannot say anything certain about it? (In fact it becomes a little more like God – very badly defined. Any attempt to do so says more about the believer than God.)

“Out of interest then, if a book is so fundamentally dangerous, why dont we ban it or burn it? Or do you agree with me that it is the interpretation of the texts in a book that kills people, if so then is this not the influence of political, and military thinking?”
Who mentioned banning it? I hope you do not think there are only two options: enforced religion, banning religion? And if the leadership that caused the interpretation is religious (e.g. the Pope) then can be finally lay the blame at the door of religion?

To be continued…

AC1