Belief in God - Dawkins Spectrum of Probabilities

[msj]

Okay, so over the holidays I have finally gotten around to reading Dawkins The God Delusion.

Dawkins presents his "spectrum of probabilities" and I thought it would be interesting to see a poll of it on here.

I added a few extra choices (#8-10) just in case.

Edited to add:

God in this context means believing in a personal God like Yahweh, God (Holy Trinity), Allah and Hindu God(s) - accepted as monotheistic rather than polytheistic but you have to read the book for these types of details.

Edited December 28, 2008 by msj

[eyeball]

Other (I am dog)

[wulf42]

There is as much chance of there being a God as there is being an Easter Bunny!

[eyeball]

There is however a better chance the Easter Bunny will be killed by a dog than a god.

[Smallc]

I believe in God. Not completely certain, but for the most part.

[capricorn]

I firmly believe in God.

I don't know what His grand plan is, but only a Supreme Being could possibly have the ability of pitting man's greatness against man's stupidity. Although there is nothing particularly significant about me as a human, I still feel I am part of His grand plan. I therefore try to live my life according to His teachings, i.e. the Ten Commandments. By doing so, I am neither in his Good Book (because I fall victim to human frailties) or his Bad Book (because I try my best not to hurt anyone but to do good whenever I can). In this way, He can concentrate on recompensing those humans that are truly deserving and punishing those that are truly evil.

I will have to wait and see what He has in store for me when I pass on to the next life. Frankly, when the time comes I'm hoping to enter the Perley Gates rather unnoticed. If St. Peter calls out "hold on just one minute capricorn..." well, I'll know I screwed up somewhere and then it will be too late.

[eyeball]

According to Pat Robertson (or was it Oral Roberts?) heaven is just like Sunday school except it goes on forever and ever and ever.

Can anyone really imagine themselves singing "We'll be Standing in the River" every day for eternity? Once was bad enough but can you imagine singing it billions of trillions of gazillions of times? I just can't imagine a more insipid place than heaven. I think I'd rather go the other way.

I suppose Surrey might be an acceptable alternative.

[August1991]

I think Dawkins is out of his depth with this question.

His book The Selfish Gene was an accessible description of evolutionary biology (and one of the best books of the past few decades). His celebrity has not treated his ego well.

[msj]

I think Dawkins is out of his depth with this question.

His book The Selfish Gene was an accessible description of evolutionary biology (and one of the best books of the past few decades). His celebrity has not treated his ego well.

From the context of this question it is obvious that you have not read The God Delusion.

Instead you have to refer to a book published back in the 1970's (not that it wasn't a good book but it is different in content and context to The God Delusion).

Dawkins presents his spectrum in context (explaining polytheism etc) amongst other interesting ideas.

I highly recommend anyone to read the entire book rather than make judgments based on a silly, but fun, poll done in a forum and/or based on reading a book or two from the author in the past.

[charter.rights]

Debating the existence of God is a non starter. You are attempting to refute a belief. If it isn't a belief then it would be false. As a belief it is true until something changes the belief.

Reality is what it appears to be at any one time. A schizophrenic sees reality in what we would consider to be a bizarre way. Yet reason cannot change the belief, nor can someone exposing the errors in that belief, and often it will have the opposite effect by further entrenching the schizophrenic in that belief.

However, our reality changes. We might start out with the day being sunny and then turning cloudy. We have different perceptions of a sunny day versus a cloudy one and so our reality changes accordingly.

The only way for one to debate the existence of God would be to prove that the God concept is false with absolute proof. That can't be done any more than a person can irrefutably prove the existence of God. Both are based on beliefs and backed by enough proof to support the belief.

[BC_chick]

Edited to erase the whole first paragraph. Oops to anyone who read it, I went way too fast on that one.

The rest still stands....

I went with 'other', so I'll explain... I believe in other plains of existence, but I completely and wholeheartedly reject a Biblical sense of an omnipotent God who is listening to our prayers. As for a "creator"... I reject that as well. I do think it's possible to get something out of nothing, be it life on earth or the universe.

After a personal tragedy I rejected any form of spirituality, but I think not believing in anything is actually harmful for our well-being, but that's just my opinion based on my own life.

The religion that comes the closest to representing my personal convictions is Buddhism.

Edited December 28, 2008 by BC_chick

[WIP]

I selected "other" from the list because the question is almost impossible to answer directly until a definition of "God" is provided first. To the majority of people, I'm an atheist, because I believe the evidence is overwhelming that the kind of God most Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in, does not exist, otherwise scientific discovery over the last two centuries would have revealed the need for an intelligent force to be operating in the physical forces that function in nature.

But what we find, is just the opposite: the diversity and struggle for survival between animals - prey and predators, is better explained by a disorganized system of natural selection, than by a man-like creator making a bunch of toy animals for his ultimate toy - man. Evolution by natural selection doesn't face the ethical dilemma of explaining why there is so much evil or suffering in the natural world -- it just is! But a man-like creator who is supposed to value all the good things in life does not have a good explanation why "if he is aware of every sparrow that falls to the ground," he is not fazed by the fact that nearly all of his creatures die of starvation, disease, or by being ripped apart by predators. Even before we get to all of the "problem of evil" issues dealing with the human race, the "loving god" concept of a creator doesn't fit with the world as it is.

In cosmology, natural processes of galaxy and stellar evolution can explain the way our universe has unfolded. The believers in a designer are now only able to play in the shadows where science is either sketchy:"what happened before the Big Bang," or where no one has been able to develop a working theory yet: "why are the physical laws of the universe perfectly balanced to allow a universe capable of producing carbon-based lifeforms to evolve." There may be acceptable theories coming in the future to provide natural explanations for these riddles as well, but even if they can't be answered, we are left with the God of Deism, who gets a universe started and then does a disappearing act. This sort of God, and the pantheistic type gods who are impersonal and can't be detected by examining the natural world are impossible to disprove, but they have retreated so far into the shadows, they are about as relevant as pink unicorns and flying spagetti monsters.

[WIP]

From the context of this question it is obvious that you have not read The God Delusion.

Instead you have to refer to a book published back in the 1970's (not that it wasn't a good book but it is different in content and context to The God Delusion).

But Dawkins's "God Delusion" is not going to cause mass deconversions -- if that was his true intent. It's not bad, but his expertise is in areas where religion bumps heads with the natural sciences, not philosophy and ethics. So, he goes after low-hanging fruit like Thomas Aqunas's ontological proof of God's existence, and doesn't deal with some of the newfangled cosmological "proofs," like William Lane Craig's "Kalam cosmological argument," or the latest tricks from Lee Strobel or Alvin Plantinga. When Christians start questioning and feeling their faith and confidence about their beliefs is in doubt, these are the guys they go to when they want to reboot their convictions.

But, this is not a dry, esoteric debate for people who don't have the luxury of being freethinkers, since they believe that a future, eternal life is in jeopardy if they stop believing; so, with so much emotional baggage tied up with a need to believe in God and a particular religious creed, how does Dawkins expect to win over devout Christians by calling them "faith heads?" I get the feeling that Richard Dawkins's conviction that everybody can become a rationalist freethinker comes from spending too much time in the ivory towers of academia. In new fields like neuropsychology, some researchers are leaning towards the conclusion that part of the way we see the world and evaluate evidence is predisposed. We may be largely either born skeptics or supernaturalists, so if traditional religions are dying out, new religions and offbeat supernatural belief systems will more likely take their place. It doesn't seem to be very realistic to be on a crusade against religion. It's more of an issue of keeping the supernatural separated from the real world. Many, I hope most of the people who believe all of the things they hear in church, are able to compartmentalize them and keep them from interfering with the way they function in their public life. It's when fights start over who has the "true religion," or having government and law run by "godly principles," that religion becomes a harmful force in the world.

I think the biggest knocks I have against the God Delusion is 1. Dawkins doesn't consider the Problem of Evil to be worth debating -- that's when I really start wondering about how comfortable a life he leads, how much research time he actually put in on theology and philosophy if he decided to fold after getting the razzle-dazzle of free will arguments from the theologians. Probably most of us who are former Christians lost faith over the inability to rationalize the suffering we see with our conception of God; I was surprised how quickly Richard dismissed it as a point worth debating!

2. the "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit" that he uses to answer the problem of explaining the exact fine tuning of our universe. Even a lot of atheists consider it a problem in need of explaining with something better than a wave of the hand dismissal by saying no matter how unlikely or what the odds are, the simple fact that we are here only shows that the most unlikely act can occur. This answer is a non-answer!

So, I would say the God Delusion is worth reading (or in my case, listening to since I got the audiobook version), but it should not be promoted as one-stop-shopping for the ultimate atheist book; but in fairness, I don't think anyone should try to write such a book, since they can only give expert analysis of certain aspects of religion and belief. For example, the best critical examinations of scriptural analysis are by Bart Ehrman: "Misquoting Jesus," the best cosmological argument against a creator is by Victor Stenger:"God, the failed hypothesis," the best theory about the development and propagation of organized religions I think would be Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell;" but these guys stick close to their areas of experitise instead of trying to write about subjects they are less informed about. Dawkins should have stuck to his area of expertise: biological evolution, and dismantling creationist theories, instead of trying to be the king of the atheists.

[msj]

WIP, the point of that post was to politely point out the absurdity of criticizing a book based on one person (me) taking a very small section of it, out of context, and put it up as a poll question.

It is also meant to politely point out the absurdity of criticizing a book by not reading it and, even absurder, by "name dropping" (book dropping?) a different book written 30 years earlier by the same author.

Yes, Dawkins mentions The Selfish Gene in The God Delusion. But the books have different focuses that would need to be discussed in their own thread by people who have read both books (preferably recently - I read The Selfish Gene about 12 years ago so I really can't comment further on it).

As for the rest of your post: you make many good points. Once again, this thread was intended to look at a small point of the book.

The danger of getting into a discussion about the book is that while you have listened to it and I have read it, I have a feeling the discussion would degenerate thanks to people who have to give us their opinions despite not reading the source material (per above).

I'm just not interested in going into that discussion at this time.

As for audio books - I love them. The best thing I ever did was get a MP3 player for my car (with Ipod dock).

Also listen to audio books when I run. Strangely enough, Freakinomics and Lolita are two of my favourites to run to.

[Mr.Canada]

There is but one true God. Jesus Christ was His one and only Son who dies for our sins.

The left who won't follow the Bible are in fact more evidence of the left wanting only for ME, ME, ME. The left cannot accept being wrong in any sense of the word and are very selfish people. Their way is the only way, the imposition of their values on us. Everything else and all other views are an attack on secular humanity.

[DogOnPorch]

There is but one true God. Jesus Christ was His one and only Son who dies for our sins.

The left who won't follow the Bible are in fact more evidence of the left wanting only for ME, ME, ME. The left cannot accept being wrong in any sense of the word and are very selfish people. Their way is the only way, the imposition of their values on us. Everything else and all other views are an attack on secular humanity.

So where do all the Hindus end up when they die?

-----------------------------

...and then there's Maude!

[bush_cheney2004]

So where do all the Hindus end up when they die?

"I think when you die , your soul goes to a garage in Buffalo.” — George Carlin

[DrGreenthumb]

There is but one true God. Jesus Christ was His one and only Son who dies for our sins.

The left who won't follow the Bible are in fact more evidence of the left wanting only for ME, ME, ME. The left cannot accept being wrong in any sense of the word and are very selfish people. Their way is the only way, the imposition of their values on us. Everything else and all other views are an attack on secular humanity.

The left can not accept being wrong? You go from saying "there is but one true God" like it is fact and there is no possible way YOU could be wrong to accusing others of doing the same. I checked the box for "I know there is a God". I had an out of body experience after a car accident and I know there is something after death, and I know there is a very powerful being there, but I certainly don't believe that the bible or any other religious document is an acurate presentation of what He wants for us or from us.

I believe that all religions are based on people's experiences with this otherside, and the powerful being that they encounter, the problem is that they end up trying to pass off their own views as "God"s views. Organized religion has always been used as a way to control societal behavior, and most often to scare people into acting a certain way.

[Mr.Canada]

The left can not accept being wrong? You go from saying "there is but one true God" like it is fact and there is no possible way YOU could be wrong to accusing others of doing the same. I checked the box for "I know there is a God". I had an out of body experience after a car accident and I know there is something after death, and I know there is a very powerful being there, but I certainly don't believe that the bible or any other religious document is an acurate presentation of what He wants for us or from us.

And through one experience that lasted maybe 30 seconds though I'm sure it seemed longer you can accurately deduce that the Bible is a complete fallacy and Christianity is false?

I believe that all religions are based on people's experiences with this otherside, and the powerful being that they encounter, the problem is that they end up trying to pass off their own views as "God"s views. Organized religion has always been used as a way to control societal behavior, and most often to scare people into acting a certain way.

I personally believe that all the 'God- fearing' religions are connected. God made the different religions because He knew that all of Earths people would never accept only one answer so he provided many paths to Him and to Heaven. Not too Catholic of me perhaps but no one is perfect unto Him.

[DrGreenthumb]

And through one experience that lasted maybe 30 seconds though I'm sure it seemed longer you can accurately deduce that the Bible is a complete fallacy and Christianity is false?

I personally believe that all the 'God- fearing' religions are connected. God made the different religions because He knew that all of Earths people would never accept only one answer so he provided many paths to Him and to Heaven. Not too Catholic of me perhaps but no one is perfect unto Him.

I never said i think the bible is complete fallacy, I said it is people's intrepretation of what they "think" God wants. I actually Believe that Jesus existed and was God. I think He came here to try and and help people be Good to one another. I think he came here to clear up people's misconceptions of God. I do not think Jesus would be a Conservative. I do not believe in the Old Testament God as He is presented in the Bible.

[Mr.Canada]

I never said i think the bible is complete fallacy, I said it is people's intrepretation of what they "think" God wants. I actually Believe that Jesus existed and was God. I think He came here to try and and help people be Good to one another. I think he came here to clear up people's misconceptions of God. I do not think Jesus would be a Conservative. I do not believe in the Old Testament God as He is presented in the Bible.

It some stuff taken out of context by some? You bet. At the same token i'd find it hard to believe that Jesus would like gay marriage as he preached directly against these things. Sodom and Gomorrah.

[DrGreenthumb]

It some stuff taken out of context by some? You bet. At the same token i'd find it hard to believe that Jesus would like gay marriage as he preached directly against these things. Sodom and Gomorrah.

I'm not confident that even the new testament is an entirely accurate presentation of the life of Jesus, or his opinions. I think it is in fact quite probable that his message has been distorted by the church, translators, and even the deciples own biases and prejudices.

[Mr.Canada]

I'm not confident that even the new testament is an entirely accurate presentation of the life of Jesus, or his opinions. I think it is in fact quite probable that his message has been distorted by the church, translators, and even the deciples own biases and prejudices.

The RCC has spent hundreds of years studying the Bible and even publishes a compendium called the Catechism of the Catholic Church to help better understand the Bible and how it is to be followed within the RCC.

[WIP]

And through one experience that lasted maybe 30 seconds though I'm sure it seemed longer you can accurately deduce that the Bible is a complete fallacy and Christianity is false?

I personally believe that all the 'God- fearing' religions are connected. God made the different religions because He knew that all of Earths people would never accept only one answer so he provided many paths to Him and to Heaven. Not too Catholic of me perhaps but no one is perfect unto Him.

Thanks for providing Exhibit A for why religion has to be kept away from law and government.

Earlier, you informed us that anyone you regard as "left" cannot be a good Christian, so at best we would have one-party rule by "Christian Conservatives." No other opinions would be considered, and if conservative Catholics ended up holding all of the cards, how long would they tolerate Evangelicals, Mormons and other allies on the Religious Right?

Your church does not believe that Protestant churches are real churches, according to your Pope (although he does accept that there may be Christians inside), so what other "God-fearing" religions that are outside of Christianity completely would a doctrinaire Catholic accept? If you really believe that God provides many paths to heaven, then you are out of step with your church's authorities; and in a Catholic theocracy, they would be setting the rules and bringing back the gold old days of the Inquisition and heresy trials -- which is why sane people value separation of church and state.

[WIP]

WIP, the point of that post was to politely point out the absurdity of criticizing a book based on one person (me) taking a very small section of it, out of context, and put it up as a poll question.

And in the previous post I mentioned why the scale is not very useful to categorize levels of belief in God -- it doesn't provide a definition! So for me, I am very sure that the gods created in the likeness of our ancestors don't exist, but I'm not sure about the First Cause creator of Deism or even fuzzy, impersonal lifeforce type gods that keep creeping further and further into the shadows and can't be examined.

It is also meant to politely point out the absurdity of criticizing a book by not reading it and, even absurder, by "name dropping" (book dropping?) a different book written 30 years earlier by the same author.

Yes, Dawkins mentions The Selfish Gene in The God Delusion. But the books have different focuses that would need to be discussed in their own thread by people who have read both books (preferably recently - I read The Selfish Gene about 12 years ago so I really can't comment further on it).

While the Selfish Gene revolutionized the understanding of biological evolution, not everybody is thrilled about the way Dawkins tries to enforce a gene-centered theory of evolutionary change. He is a bully when it comes to advocating his own ideas and rejecting those he considers inerrant, so some biologists such as E.O. Wilson and David Sloan Wilson, who have done most of their early research on complex social insects like ants and bees, have been critical of his attempts to shut down any serious consideration of species and group level evolution, but E.O. Wilson points out that it is impossible to understand the evolution of social insects by focusing on genetic changes alone. To the entomologists, the ant, bee and termite colonies behave as a single organism and worker and soldier ants will freely sacrifice their lives for the good of the colony. So I wonder how much of Dawkins's certainty of his own beliefs colours his interpretations of religion and social activism!

The danger of getting into a discussion about the book is that while you have listened to it and I have read it, I have a feeling the discussion would degenerate thanks to people who have to give us their opinions despite not reading the source material (per above).

And that will happen with any book written on religion -- I wasn't really trying to get a debate going about the merits of the God Delusion, I am just a little concerned about personality cults that are intentionally and sometimes accidentally form around one person. The problem I have with Dawkins, is similar to the problem I have with Christopher Hitchens. He's a smart guy, well read, and makes a lot of interesting observations, but when he's wrong, he just keeps plowing ahead absolutely certain that he is right. The problem is that these are the atheists that the mainstream press want to talk to because they offer the most inflammatory statements -- they are not necessarily the ones who have written the best books or have the best advice with how to deal with religion and religious beliefs in society though.