The Atheism FAQ with Richard Dawkins

Very interesting Diganta, did you know that Darwin himself was a very religious man and had the backing of his local priest when he published his work? I'll have to pick up a copy of this book.

In the corporate world we have sonething called dal-roti. Everybody in the organisation (as well as in our daily lives) should have something (an initiative/ focus) that he or she can call his own and survive in the organisation due to that. Our man Dawkins Dal Roti is Atheism. I am sure his belief in Atheism pays his gas bills and home mortgage, good for him.

Personally I am not sure if God does or does not exist. At one end, evolution and big bang seems to be a decent way to explain many things, yet as you go about peeling the layers it is confounding to think when and how the first 'layer' came about, surely not natural processes. Until then as I have been told since childhood, keep your mind open. Extremism in anything, even if it is in rationalism is dangerous. Our rationalists think they are superior (or smarter) human beings having learnt to dump God.

Religion and morality were addressed but I wish religion and spirituality had been addressed too....for some, religion is a way of life and for others it defines a spiritual core that centers their energies.

Diganta, my favorite question though was the very last one because that is where the author's dilemma should've surfaced if he truly did not believe in religion. When asked if his ultimate goal for readers was that they give up their faith upon reading his book he answered in the affirmative!!

Very surprising!!! Here's why:

For someone who does not conform to religion it is a bit odd that he would then expect people to give up their beliefs based upon a reading of his own....isn't that what religious preachers and missionaries try to propagate? That is what conversion is based on: read my tenets, my postulates, my commandments, change your mind and follow my faith not what your intellect or your spirituality dictates. It is just yet another religion albeit in this case, more dangerously, a God-less one! :)

When he says; "To believe in an unlikely event or a deity only because we cannot disprove it, sounds foolish to me." I wonder if he realizes that the converse is also true.

Very interesting compilaton of the author's views, Diganta! Thought provoking and worthy of analysis.

My first response is I am not agreeing with the author at all points, especially what could be an alternative source of morality. I will compile another point of view very soon. Now let me try to respond to all :
@Amrita
Dawkins has written about 'religious' scientists. Darwin used to compartmentalise his views, may be even I also do the same.
@Chandra
Atheism is dal-roti of a few, religion is dal-roti for many. We can't really compare the numbers. Moreover, he is a biologist, specialized in behavioural evolution. He must have been obstructed many a times by the religious right wing while carrying his research. His first book The Selfish Gene focuses on how human beings can be altruist by the effect of evolution.
About how the first layer came about - if you are already biased about a personal God creating the first layer, then research in that area is bound to stop. Dawkins said he's open to God once evidence comes up.
@Aditi
I wonder if he realizes that the converse is also true. - of course, but something that's 1% likely event, nobody should take it for granted as true. There's a probability of everything and there has to be openness on accepting evidences.

Darwin theory has holes too...For e.g if A transitioned to B in n steps A1, A2, A3, A4 ... An, such that B is totally different from A, where are A1, A2, A3s for all such transitions. A1, A2 and A3 were definitely suitable enough to exist that is why they propagated. Is not it. Think a little.

Darwin theory kind of believes in quantum points where as nature has to be continious for it to be so varied.

I am a little skeptical of Darwin theory.

Darwin's theory is a theory. And would remain so until someone comes up with a better one.

Firstly I want to see the separation of the idea of God and Religion. One could "believe" in God and yet not follow any predefined religion. Similarly for an agnostic like me, the presence or the absence of God is hardly a matter of question, neither is an identity of religion. (yeah, in Dawkin's words I'm the "people who follow the middle ground").

Science has often proved us that today's theories may well be proved false tomorrow. The truth is always scattered somewhere across all such theories. And the same goes to the "notion" of God.

The ideas of God and Religion are a "belief" and not "knowledge". One KNOWs he has a hand. (this is knowledge). But he BELIEVEs in God. (this is belief). Goes to show the whole thing is more "psychological" in nature than anything else.

People are inherently insecure, that they just "believe" in something because it makes them feel better.

@Hardy
All A1,A2,A3...An could never exist and that is what is told in 'Natural Selection'. For example, both A and A1 will have almost the same food structure and one of them would be naturally gifted to survive better than the other. After generations, only the naturally selected species will exist ... we can get those A1,A2,A3...An as fossils.
Secondly, I feel you are gone into the same trap that I used to be before I understood evolution. For example, Monkeys did not 'turn into' humans. There was an animal living on the earth, some of their decendents are todays monkeys, some are Chimps, some are Gaurillas and some are Humans. We share the same ancestors and not that one converted to other.
@Kishore
Although I share most of your views, I would like to clarify you on some points. Newton's laws of Motion and 'Theory' of Gravity are all proved wrong for certain circumstances, but not a radically different theory came up in the process. So, even if Natural Selection is proven wrong, something will come up that will be close to the existing theory.
But he BELIEVEs in God. - I know the difference between believing and knowing. But it's not true for all - there's a certain section of people who think 'they know' God exists. If you believe and don't know and pass on your belief to your kids as 'belief' and not as knowledge, it might turn out that he/she's started 'knowing' - that's what he claims as a 'virus effect of belief'.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MoD38qDvwi4

Here is a little review/critique of the above mentioned book.

Watched the video a couple of times. There are a few points I should raise :
1) Dawkins thinks he cares only about truth, religion things that are proven untrue. Hence he discredits religion. He does not consider the effects.
2) Both negative effects of Science shown in the video were due to 'immoral' use of Science. Dawkins never said that morality is useless, something that Communists or Fascists used to say. He said, we should not use religion as a source of morality. Using Science with morality is the solution - as suggested by Dawkins.
3) Hamza Yusuf says that human behaviour is the problem - something that I agree with. I hope Dawkins also agrees with that, since he has kept a video by Rod Liddle in his site that discusses the same. But what drives the human beings to become irrational or immoral, that is something Dawkins to look at.
4) If religion is a thing that is immune to criticism, human beings will continue to fall in traps of immorality. Once religion is also open to criticism as any other political views (like Communism), corrections to religious views can be done.

I am happy at the beginning of Hamza Yusuf's video since he agrees that religion has some bad effects - something that implies that it is not immune to criticism, neither it is a 'absolute truth'. The problem that Dawkins faced with religion/God as it is 'immune to criticism' and an 'absolute truth'. In that sense, he agrees with the main issue raised by Dawkins.

Dharma is something diferent then morality or religion.

Dhrama is the path how to see God the original entity from where we all have evolved. Atrophysiscs are also dharmic people busy in finding out the truth and so are other sadhakas investigating the truth.

Dharma is step by step procedure how to enhance the capacity/range of our five senses.

Our eyes can see light of wavelength range 3800 Angstron to 7800 A. Dharma makes you capable of seeing beyong that and reaching out the truth.

Your ears can hear the sound frequencies of 20-20000 Hertz, dharma makes you capable of going beyond this range.

Dharma takes you further deep beyond mind and intellect and then makes you able to see unbiasedly and all secrest of nature are out.

Therefore religions of Indian origin are never at conflict with scientifica investigation or cros verification of scriptures. Ayurveda, Jyotish, Dhanurveda, Gandharva veda all branches of knowledge are part of dharmic literature and their ultimate aim is to make its follwers eligible to see the deepst truth.

Nothing is to be belived in dharmic traditions. You have to trust earleir scientists only. Like Newtons laws of motion that are opne to cross verification has to be `believed' but you are not forced to belive them as you are free to verify them yourself if you do not believe.

Opposite to it, religions of Isreali origin are at conflict with scinece. They need to `believe' in certain items of religious books without questioning n desire to cross verify them and that's why they are always in conflict with science. As such this article and others of different scientists and athiests are applicable to `believers' and not to Dharmik people.

For a Dharmik people religion and scince are just two different ways toreach the truth. that's why Dharmik people and scientists never claim to have monopoly on `truth' while each `beleivers' religion claims to have monopoly on `truth' and only their way is true and rest are false. Such mentality of `I am the greatest' is root of all intyolerance and conflicts today and hence we should do everything possible to stop spread of such clsoeminded ideologies that instigate intolerance in society. We should encourage scientific temperament. tendency to cross verify the `acclaimed truths' in scriptures of various religions and whatever we find true should be follwed.

This was the very reason why Kumbh melas were organsied in India where people used share their experinecs every 12 years for the welfare of humanity.

Our forefathers have given us a lot to solve present day conflicts. I call upon all Indians to positively take their teachings, evaluate them in modern contexts and use them for the welfare of humanity no mater wahich way of worship we follwo today, we all have equal right on that great heritage of our forfathers.

Just like mass and energy are interconvertible, so is energy and consciousness as per vedanta. Scientists have verified the frist part and nuclear energy is the talk of the world today.

let's pick up the seocnd thread as well and proove to the world that energy is the solidified consciouness exactly the way mass is solidified energy.

Atheists, belivers and dharmics all can work togather on such projects and investigate the truth togather.

Good luck ppl. let's be positive and try to make this world a better place to live.

Dharma is mostly a way of life but most of Indian religious belief is not restricted to the area of Dharma. They also believe in God as a personal deity, and offers regular prayers. The caste system, was an ominous by-product of this belief in personal gods. Only the caste-brahmins were allowed to offer direct prayers to most of the gods and others were dependent on them. As a result, they were able to exploit most of the hindus existing. The Dharmik philosophies were mostly confined within the Brahmins. Have you ever heard of any 'Sudra' contributing to Indian philosophies? There may be only rare examples ...

Yes #7...but what I pointed to was the fact that
between A and B both of which exists today we had A1,A2 A3...AN in series(and not in parallel). Today we find both A and B and hence both of them are capable enough to have survived, but at one point of time A1 was more suited(or in your language a diversified form of A) so A1 must have survived. Hence do not we ought to find A1...An exisiting in nature(or their fossil remains) too.
Given numberoous species that exist today we must have many times more species that ever existed(but got gradually obsolete) and hence all the fossil remains of all those species.t that is not to be the fact or is it?

I don't know any example of both A and B exists. That's why I wrote another 'clarification'. Let me copy paste it once more. If you are not yet satisfied, I'll write up an evolution FAQ.
#7 ->
"I feel you are gone into the same trap that I used to be before I understood evolution. For example, Monkeys did not 'turn into' humans. There was an animal living on the earth, some of their decendents are todays monkeys, some are Chimps, some are Gaurillas and some are Humans. We share the same ancestors and not that one converted to other."

No here A=Common Ancestor
A1, A2 are some intermediate stages.
B is humans ...
And in another path ->
A1`,A2`...B`, where B` is monkey.

*But* that is not to be the fact or is it?

Also, when according to darwin theory if several closely related species inhabited the same territory when they were getting gradually evolved(or extinct), we surely ought to find many transitional forms even today, but I hardly do see such forms in as abundance as I would expect it to. Are you saying my window period is too short? But still I feel at any point of time they should exist(if not today then in fossils at least).

#7 Diganta: That whole explanation you were giving to Hardy reminded me of a funny scene in this series called "My Name Is Earl". Earl explains the whole evolution thing to his slightly slow brother Randy and upon hearing the whole "monkey to man" theory Randy looks a little shaken up. "Damn, I don't remember having been a monkey" he says.

Sorry if I derailed the discussion but had to share this one. Hope it gives you guys a laugh. Something tells me going to turn serious in here soon :D

I do see your point that in An is to betraced back to A'n it can only be via A and no other route.

However what i am saying is that why were A1, A2 to become extinct why did not they survive(co-exist) with A2 branching from A1 , A3 branching out from A2 and so on...Why do all intermediate varities have to extinct. Assuming there is an explanation that they become extinct over period of time, but still we need as manyto find (and in fact many more) their fossile remains.

I do see your point that in An is to betraced back to A'n it can only be via A and no other route.

However what i am saying is that why were A1, A2 to become extinct why did not they survive(co-exist) with A2 branching from A1 , A3 branching out from A2 and so on...Why do all intermediate varities have to extinct. Assuming there is an explanation that they become extinct over period of time, but still we need as manyto find (and in fact many more) their fossil remains.

Well Aditi...the fact that I have descended from monkeys does probably do some good to my ego...(atleast I am better fit to survive than some living beings. ; ) .

However monkeys still survive and that is what my contention is, if monkey survived then the intermediate variant between monkey and man also existed and survived(it should do today also since monkeys exist today), but even if does not exists today its fossils should be found and so on so forth for every transitional form of every species.

The fact that our species are so very distinct(obviosuly there are quite a few exceptions as well) makes me wonder, how did it happen. I am surely missing something. I will do some internet research to find more and will post here if I get a successful answer.

There fossils do remain. There are speculations that even a few hundreds of years ago, another human species(Homo floresiensis) existed in Indonesia. There are species like Neanderthals became extinct only 24000 years ago. There are fossils to support them. These are all those 'missing link's or quantum steps. Between Humans and ancestors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Now the next point is why did they become extinct at the first place. The answer were simple. They could not reproduce as fast as our ancestors did. Dinosaurs did disappear, so did Dodo birds. This is triggered by change in geography, food-chain, natural calamities to competitions with other species - many possible reasons. And their fossil remains are definitely been found - over and over ...

By the way Aditi, Please check out carefully Diganta's contention to which I also agree wholesomely, is that we did not descend from monkeys but both monkeys and humans descended from common ancestor.

#19
Humans are NOT descended from MONKEYs directly. Humans and monkeys share the common ancestry.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Human-evolution.jpg

See the picture - humans, gorillas , orang otangs and Chimpanzees are all descendents of Anthropoids, who are extinct these days.

This is all based on fossil records found to date.

I dont think anybody is going to change their minds due to Mr Dawkins. The book itself indicates a certain sense of definiteness (like Gravity) which I think is indicative of Mr. Dawkins closed mind. One statement of concession will not change that.

I don't think evolution requires the extinction of an ancestor. Evolution means an animal was able to adapt to its environment better than some others: there is that famous example of nonpoisonous jellyfish in one of the archipelagos of the Pacific. There's a huge number of them and they float around peacefully in their little pool in the middle of an island. Even monkeys develop differently according to the terrain which they inhabit.

As for monkeys and men having descended from a common ancestor, The Economist's science section ran an article a few months back about emerging evidence that suggested men (or rather an early version of man) and monkeys used to interbreed. The longer we live, the more we'll find out.

I am not sure if my joke contributed to the confusion in any way but it was supposed to be just funny not scientific :)

Like someone in this discussion (Kishore, I think) pointed out already, Darwin's theory is just that...a theory. In science we come up with a hypothesis and the ones that come the closest towards being completely demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt get labeled theories. Unless someone else comes up with a better one, we get to study and discuss that one theory.

Similarly, the author of this book also has a hypothesis that he will have to suficiently and convincingly demonstrate before people just decide to accept it as a valid theory.

I think most genomes indicate the common genes we have with certain species and upon examing the functions of those genes one can delineate the exact mechanisms we have in common with them. It is a fascinating science, really. I found out the other day that only a portion of the gene I am studying, has been conserved from zebrafish, fruit fly, rabbits, cows, orangutans and humans. But oddly some other species don't have it. This in line with the hypothesis that natural selection coupled with genomic seggregation is at the basis of evolution.

So in short, as more and more genomes get completely detailed on the databases, we can then trace the genetic backgrounds and have a better inheritance map.

Diganta @20.. Thanks a lot for that information...

However, I do see how Dinosaurs became extinct because there was an abrupt natural calamity but not all species (such great variety) can be explained on basis of rather infrequent natural disasters.

To say They could not reproduce as fast as our ancestors did, is also not all very convincing because even if the reproduced at lesser rate, what made them go extinct.

However there is while lot of knowledge and information when you say "competitions" with other transitional species. The Bold word is mine. While doing some research on net, I also came across a similar but more exhaustive explanation(I guess by Darwin himself)

Continued to next comment...

Continued from previous comment...

www.online-literature.com/
darwin/originofspecies/7/

@Chandra #23
At least I did. He was definite since he is a scientist and had come across scores of evidences for it. BTW, gravity is also a theory since we are not yet sure about gravitational forces working for giant objects in the universe - or there may exist any other 'matter' for which gravity works differently.
@Amrita #24
suggested men (or rather an early version of man) and monkeys used to interbreed. - There is no problem in interbreeding since both are coming from the same ancestor. For other part, I do agree that evolution does not require another species to get 'extinct'.

@Aditi #25
Agree with you. But, let me remind you that a well-accepted theory is generally the base of next theory. The theory of relativity did not change the newton's laws of motion radically, but gave us deeper understanding and more clarifications. So, if you start from a worse theory (God hypothesis), you'll take more time to get to the ultimate truth. Dawkins shows why the God Hypothesis is worse.
#26
So in short, as more and more genomes get completely detailed on the databases, we can then trace the genetic backgrounds and have a better inheritance map. - Absolutely spot on!!!
@Hardy #27
To say They could not reproduce as fast as our ancestors did, is also not all very convincing - I cited several different reasons for that.

I think we should close all comments on Evolution here. Only God related comments are allowed. I will definitely come up with 'The Evolution Faq' very soon.

another lighter and sharper view on god is from George Carlin.

you can watch some of his videos on you tube - carlin and religion.

i find them sharp, funny but bringing out the way religions played a role in man's life. often disastrously.

cheers

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8uBAPbOWLxc

George Carlin video.

I think the Buddhist belief in Karma is similar to that of God, although Buddhism is claim to be one of the 'nonthestic' religions in the world.

Instead of a creator they beleive in the cycle of Samsara and Karma. Buddha when asked to explain the universe by a follower, simply refused to do so saying that knowing the begining of the universe was not as important as cessation of suffering:(

I would like to know your thoughts on the concept of Karma Diganta.

Karma, in practise can be 'atheist'(sans a personal God) although it has a religious origin. But I think Karma cannot escape Dawkins since Dawkins cares about truth by evidence. Cause and Consequence chain, that is the core of Karma, is not at all supported by evidences. Also the concept of rebirth, that lacks proof, is very much the part of Karma philosophy. The questions like 'who keeps track of your Karma/Dharma' irrevesibly points to one supreme being (Brahamana => God) that again will raise the eyebrows of Dawkins.

However, as I said at the first place, Karma can be carried on without belief in God. But again, it becomes one more 'virus' that might provoke someone to involve in a 'Dharma-yuddha', isn't that?

Diganta #12,

All negativities you are mentioning here is product of last 1000 years when foreign rulers appointed landlords and greedy pandits in association tese froeign appointed landlords exploited society.

Vedvyasa the comiler of all Hindu scriptures was a shudra only.
valmiki who wrote ramayana was a shudra only.

kakbhushandi Rishi was ashudra only.

satyakaam jabali describes as great saint scholars in Upnishads was a Shudra and many more.

If you read Bhagwadgeeta , Varna system very clearly describes is based on your natural intincts and never by birth. Landlords and greedy priests hijacked this system to exploit masses.

Lord Krishna says very clearly that in chapter 18:shloka 41-44.

And this classification is meant only for recognising the best spritual path for one person based on his natural tendencies. It is like a doctor analysing history of diferent allergies etc before prescribing medicine so that medicine may to creation creation to metabolism of the patient.

Deity worship and all are merely tools to inject dharma and that's why our forfathers all ways of worship provided they help in focussing mind on Dharmic issues.

I call upon all educated Hindus to read scriptures themselves today and expose the lies spread by imperialist tranlators about our our great civilisation.

castims and untouchability are social ills amd a religion should not be demonised for the social ills.

Just like Islmic terrrosim is a social ill and it is wrong to demonise Islam for acts of some terrorists being muslims, just like witch hunting drug addition and broken families inw estern sociaties are social ills and has nothing to do with chrsitianity and jesus should not demonised for acts of greedy periest whol kileld around 3 million innocent woemn by decareing them witches, exactly the same way we should not demonise hindusism due to its social ills in teh from of castims and untouchability.

Even dr Ambedkar recognised based on Harsha Charita natak that Hindus used to practise concept of impurity and not untouchability by 6th century ie reign of King Harsha where a Chandal girl marries the king.

By 7th centiry India was plagues by invasions of arabs and Muslims, whole social strcutures were broked, surviwal became and mantra and not dharma or karma and these were these dark days of Indian history when this evil of untouchabilty and rigid castims eneterd in our society.

Let's read our ancinet literature ourselves and stop beliveing what our imperial masters told about us. their english transaltions were never meant for our enlightenment but to create inferiroty in us towards our culture and rleigion.

In teh worlds of swami Vivekanada I call upon Indian youth to arise awake and analyse ourselves. Show dustbin to imperialist interpretation of Indian history that has createda big dravidian movement based on a false theory cooked by imperialists to divide Indians between aryans and dravidians. yes Aryan Invasion theory has been accepted as fabricated lie even by BBC today.

@Man Singh #36
I agreed earlier that Dharmik system is not a fully theist system rather it calls for 'way of life'.

I agree that initially caste system was not based on birth, but it had potential to become one. The blame for the caste divisions you're putting on 'foreigner's. However, as it is widely accepted, Gautama Buddha was really popular among lower castes and most of Buddha's teachings were indeed against Brahmanism. Hence, we can conclude that Brahmanism was a part of Indian society by that time (5th Century BCE). BTW, historically, there's nothing much known about Valmiki, Vedavyasa or Satyakama.

Landlords and greedy priests hijacked this system to exploit masses. - Exactly, so who should we blame that for? The principle was not based upon pure reason, so anybody could have hijacked that for his own benefit.

I have concerns on those ancient literatures - if we already know what's good and what's bad, why do we need references from them?

Diganta, almost evrey educated Hindu have same feelings as yours. The beutiful humanistic tolerant unique teachings of `ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti' or `live and let live' are the brilliant contributions of ancinet Hindus and we all are worried to preserve the same from that attacks form outside and from within.

Hijacking is the right term you have used and your question `whom to blame' is also very much relevant.

There are two parites here. One those who allowed it to happen. and second those who actually played the mischief.

First category people were weakened by attcks by foreign invaders and second category are crooks criminals within society.

Just like dacoits attack the vilage , weaken good people and some crooks within village associate with dacoits and start opressing the society.

Kiler and killed ? who is at fault?

`Brahmanism' is nowhere mentioned in Indian literature. British coined this term to permanently divide Hindus and Budhists and communists are continuing it till date for their vested interests. Ancinet literature used word Dharma always. When down fall of dharma occured Budha re-established Dharma. When Budhsim became corrupted, Adi shankara re-established Dharma. When Mughals became tyrants, Guru Gobind Singh re-establsihed Dharma.

Before Britsh, Hindus, Budhists and Sikhs never used any different identities. They all were follwers of Dharma.

Well now issue is how to eliminate cast discrimination while cast based reservation and cast based politics is very much in place.

I am confused totally how can we eliminate castims while nurturing the castims through reservation and politics.

"Opposite to it, religions of Israelite origin are at conflict with science. They need to `believe' in certain items of religious books without questioning n desire to cross verify them and that's why they are always in conflict with science. As such this article and others of different scientists and atheists are applicable to `believers' and not to Dharmic people."

Please, Man Singh. Stick with what you know. You probably know the principles of dharma very well, and I'll not attempt to dispute anything that you say concerning them. For me to do so would be the height of arrogance.

But please do not presume to know about the religion of my people - its principles of meditation, its principles of logic extending directly from the G-dhead, the concepts of creating the universe that match the Big Bang and ten-string theory.

Like the Vedic works, the Zohar is logic at the deepest level. There are direct links (through the Zohar) between the Children of Israel and their Sumerian ancestors - ancestors who saw a civilization far different from anything you might imagine. There are links between that ancient Sumerian civilization and the ancient civilization that existed in the Indus valley. As those links are slowly uncovered, the ties between us Semites and you South Asians will slowly come to light.

And there are many surprises that will really shake most of us when they are uncovered...

Let it stand with that for the moment.

^^^^
Effects are already been noticed - :), attack one's religion and get lost. So many people are posting against me ...
Can't we curb it a little?

Aditi's logic is dangerously flawed in her statements:

"For someone who does not conform to religion it is a bit odd that he would then expect people to give up their beliefs based upon a reading of his own....isn't that what religious preachers and missionaries try to propagate? That is what conversion is based on: read my tenets, my postulates, my commandments, change your mind and follow my faith not what your intellect or your spirituality dictates. It is just yet another religion albeit in this case, more dangerously, a God-less one!"

Aditi, you have not distinguished between reason and faith; you illogic rests on the conflation of the two.

Yeah, atheism is not another religion, it's purely reason and God is left out because existence of God is an unlikely event as proved by reasoning.

Diganta, God can be seen by very rational means exactly the way you can proove Air, electron or atom though can not be seen with naked eyes, but when appropriate equipments and process are used you can see them.

Similarly when aqequate procedure is follwed, God can be seen by any sincere seeker can see it through a 6 year riguorous course.

I feel Atheism is another way to find the truth. Religion and science are different emans to reach the same truth just like Physicas, chemistry and mathematics each branch of knowledge attempts to reach the truth using different methods.

Ruvvy in jerusalam, I apologise if If I have offended you out of my ignorance, my common sense based opinion was based on the following facts about religions of israli origin ie Judaim, Islam and Christinaity:

1. Jews belive that they are God's chosen people and their way to reach is `the only' way.

2.Christians say that Jesus is `the only' way as God changed his plans and Judaims is no more valid.

3. Muslims belive that both of teh above has become wrong. God has chnaged his plans again and `Mohamemd is the final true way'.

So far so good.

problem arises when Muslims and Christians both strat saying that they have God given right to impose their way of worship on whole humanity(jews are more civilised on this issue) and use the all economic, military and political might to do that. Even noble acts of charities are also used as weapons of conversion to heiten the shame on humanity.

This tendency of monopolising God and truth and arrogant use of force to impose that self declared `only way'. This `only way' concept is the root of evil and conflicts.

Opposite to this `only way' concept Indian Dharmic religions always streeded on 10 fundamental principles of Dhrama allowed pluralism and firmly belived that this is `another true way'to inject Dharma in society and it was left to people whom they believe.

Budha never said he is strating a new religion. he only said I am injceting Dharma.

Guru Gobind Singh also stresed that I am starting this Khalasa panth to re-establish Dharma.

Clearly concept of `only true way' leads to conflicts while concept of `another true way' leads to tolerance and reconcilliation.

#41 & #42:

Most religions will appeal to your logic in some way or another. To me, a religion is an extension of common set of beliefs. Here the common belief would be the absence of a God. True, I agree that logic prevails but what about those who believe that faith defies logic for after all logic is based on our understanding and knowledge of things?

As scientists we are taught (in Statistics & Logic) that: If you cannot prove theory A, the converse does not neccessarily become true unless you can prove that theory A is impossible. Both then, remain hypotheses even in the eyes of rationale.

Hence, no matter what the author states, if he cannot beyond reasonable doubt completely disprove the possibility of there being a God then scientifically his logic is very much in the same boat as those who can't prove that God exists. This to me was indicated by the following question in Diganta's post:


*********************
In your book, you've said that God 'almost certainly' does not exist. Why are you leaving open the possibility?

Any scientific people will leave open that possibility, that they cannot disprove whatever unlikely the event might be. I would be the first person to accept God once evidence comes in favour of it.

**********************

As I said in my comment, the author's hope that upon reading this book people will immediately discard their own faith and assume his, is similar in nature to what preachers do when attempting conversion or propagating a religion.

Ergo: The reason I did not distinguish between reason and faith is because it is not upto me to do it, it should be upto the readers and that is precisely what the author should have said in response to the last question.

That was exactly my point!

Aditi/Diganta,

We gain knowledge through our senses. Eyes, ears, Skin, nose Tongue . But all of these sense organs have some limitations. Eyes can not see light beyong 3800 - 7800 Angstrom wavelength.
Ear can not hear sound waves beyond a range of 20-2000 HZ and so on.

Then mind and intelect (Man n Budhi)comes in to picture. They enhance our capacity to see truth deeper then our sense levels using various instruments and experiments etc. Electron microscope is the limit to enhance the magnification power. But even mind and intellect have their own limitations and those who want go even beyong that limit and want to discover truth far depeer.

Vedic scientists document that in such a case you have intensify the whole consciousness. Collect it from senses, mind and intellect and focus it on one object to intensify your capacity to grasp the truth. The moment you reach level of a finer element known as soul, all secrets of nature are open to you.

You can see a pure conscious blissful and essential element in creation busy in creating, sustaining and recycling this nature and thsoe great people named that element as God.

Aditi, religion is set of certain beliefs in western world, Indian concept of Dharma is set of universal truths that can be cross verified and doen'nt matter if someone belives in them or not.

Liquid flow from high level to low level, flame always moves in upside direction againt gravity etc are natural dharma of liquids and flame. No need to belive in them. They are universal truths.

same way set of 10 universal truths are natural dharma of human beings.(daya dhriti khsama etc)

They are open to scrutity and cross verification. God doesn'nt come in to picture here. Yes Vedic rishis say that bthe person who uphold these universal values in life is capable of seeing deepest truth ie God even if he/she doens'nt believe in it.

We should be truth seeker even if we are athiests. Hinduism allowed even athiests to search the truth ijn their own way. But we should be honest and focused on our goal. Atheism should not be an excuse to run away from the problem.

Actually, my point regarding Aditi's faulty logic was regarding her standard of what constitutes an appeal to reason and proof. In fact, I strongly criticize Dawkins for his weak atheism. Indeed, we already have a term for his kind of belief--and that is called "agnosticism."

Agnosticism leaves room for the possibility of god's existence. Atheism does not. I am an atheist, and the proper definition of an atheist is a person who recognizes the *fact* that there is neither a god nor any other supernatural being. Thus, atheism is a positive credo assertive an affirmative position--not a disbelief in god, but an outright rejection of even the remotest possibility of such an entity existing.

I will not post my extensive articles on atheism here at Desicritics because I suppose they are irrelevant to the "South Asian" perspective. Hence, those of you interested in how Objectivism--the philosophy I subscribe to--expresses its atheistic position, unlike the weak kind of Dawkins--then proceed onto my personal blog and look under the CATEGORY for ATHEISM.

A side point, very important: logic is the epistemological representation of metaphysical reality. In other words, logic is man's conceptual grasp of concrete facts and relationships. Thus, there can be NO dichotomy between logic and reality. Just as logic permits no contradictions, reality permits no contradictions. However, logic can be abstracted as a purely theoretical, intellectual game divorced from reality, in which case, it is merely a mind game--a brainteaser, a cheap puzzle.

#45 Man Singh
Point 1:
You are going into dualism that mind and body are two different things - but modern science has proved many times that mind resides inside our brain.

Point 2:
If you take religion as a 'way of life' there should not be any problem to anybody, but be open to criticism. In India, religion is generally open to criticism, though gods/religious institutions are not. That culture we have to change. The kind of Dharma you're talking of, are not present among a lot of Indians.
@Ergo #46
Your position is truly what is called Atheism. But, Dawkins is an Agnostic - I understand.

#45 Man Singh
Point 1:
You are going into dualism that mind and body are two different things - but modern science has proved many times that mind resides inside our brain.

Point 2:
If you take religion as a 'way of life' there should not be any problem to anybody, but be open to criticism. In India, religion is generally open to criticism, though gods/religious institutions are not. That culture we have to change. The kind of Dharma you're talking of, are not present among a lot of Indians.
@Ergo #46
Your position is truly what is called Atheism. But, Dawkins is an Agnostic - I understand.

^^
Sorry for posting twice.

@Aditi #44
If you cannot prove theory A, the converse does not neccessarily become true unless you can prove that theory A is impossible. Both then, remain hypotheses even in the eyes of rationale. - Now till you don't gather evidences, you try out with observations to see which one matches the most of the observation. Once you fit most of your observations into one particular theory, the other automatically becomes less probabilistic one. Now, till date, no observation has been made wrt God, yet people assume God exists and carry on their life on that assumption. On the other hand, despite many evidences made for Big Bang and Evolution, people just happy to refute them ...

@Ergo

@Ergo
I think Atheism related topics are very much related to South Asia since most of the South Asians are deeply religious. We need to talk to make our presence felt ...

@Ergo
I think Atheism related topics are very much related to South Asia since most of the South Asians are deeply religious. We need to talk to make our presence felt ...

#46 Ergo: "In other words, logic is man's conceptual grasp of concrete facts and relationships."

Facts would be current and present understanding of things, right? Scientists strive every day to make new discoveries which leaves the possibility of "facts" being refreshed every time a new discovery or correlation is made. I don't believe I set any standard for what constitutes as appeal for reason/ logic...that to me is purely subjective. I couldn't, even if I tried, define a standard. What appeals to one person's logic doesn't always appeal to somebody else's.

#49: Diganta: If you consider these as purely statistical experiments one cannot possibly calculate percent probability for either of the two since there is no sample size and no defined observation. Both null hypotheses cannot be rejected and will have to remain just that: hypotheses, unless in the following circumstances a) God appears and makes himself/ herself/ itself known or b) we finally find irrefutable proof that God doesnt exist. I doubt either of those will happen.

#45 Man Singh: Honestly, my views about religion are a little too liberal, I am told. I take what appeals to my intellect and filter out what doesn't. Every religion, according to me, has its share of good and bad. And I take what to me seems "good" morally and ethically or just in terms of general well-being. If you say something like "Religion is a set of beliefs in the Western world" I will just smile and move on because read my words carefully i said "Religion TO ME is a common set of beliefs". I have always viewed religion as something that should bring us strength, a sense of peace, faith, well being and communal sense. I find a sense of belonging very gratifying and hence I choose to identify myself with a religion not because I think less of any other religion. I make peace with every belief that doesn't violate someone else's.

I studied Sanskrit and read the Vedas (if you remember from our exchange in another post), I have attended various religious conferences (about Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and my own religious views (as well as my views about politics and social issues) I have summarized in my Desicritics article titled "Mirror, Mirror, On The Wall"

http://desicritics.org/2007/05/05/002440.php

Bottomline: I respect other people's opinions and persuasions and put my own good sense above anything didactic when it comes to my own.

"...facts about religions of Abrahamic origin, i.e. Judaism, Islam and Christianity:

1. Jews believe that they are God's chosen people and their way to reach is `the only' way.

2.Christians say that Jesus is `the only' way as God changed his plans and Judaism is no more valid.

3. Muslims believe that both of the above has become wrong. God has changed his plans again and `Mohammed is the final true way'.

The problem arises when Muslims and Christians both start saying that they have God given right to impose their way of worship on whole humanity(Jews are more civilised on this issue)..."

Let's clarify a couple of points here, Man Singh.

Jews believe in the One Living G-d Who created the Universe and who commanded Abraham to leave his home in Sumer and travel to Israel. The Torah contains 613 commandments that apply to the Children of Israel ALONE. The rest of you, meaning everybody commenting on this thread except (if she shows up) Smallsquirrel, are defined as Children of Noah, and are covered by Seven Laws of Noah:

1. Recognizing G-d
2. Blessing G-d
3. Not spilling blood
4. Not engaging in sexual immorality
5. Not stealing
6. Not cutting off the limb of a live animal to eat it
7. Establishing courts of law and justice

So Jews have no reason to shove our religion down your throats. In time, you'll do all of the above. Whether Dharma leads you along this path or not is irrelevant to us. That is not our problem.

As for us, we believe we have to keep ourselves holy, for the Land (of Israel) is holy (Leviticus 18), and that we are counted apart from mankind, a nation set aside - the root meaning of the Hebrew word "holy" - "kadósh". But that is not your problem.

#52 Aditi
I doubt either of those will happen. - But it can be proved that :
1) mind is a part of our body and there's nothing called afterlife.
2) A particual way of life cannot get you to heaven.
3) our life/fortune is not AFFECTED by God.

I am talking about the points of observation on the above mentioned points. God may exist beyond all these, but the matter realigion will loose it's 'sting' once these are proved.
Till date, the observations made are refuting all these. These observations are all natural since all these are natural event and statistics can be gathered on them. So, it's reasonable not to bellieve in 'afterlife', 'prayer' or 'book of faith'.

#54 Diganta:
In response to your points:

1) One can believe in the existence of God without believing in an afterlife.

2) True. This still doesn't disprove that there is a supreme being who humans can direct their faith towards.

3) Probably. This still doesn't prove the lack of a God.

Here's what I think: I feel that religion and God for some reason are equated and people are led to believe that if it weren't for religion humans would lose their faith. I don't think so. I think religion brings a sense of belonging as I stated earlier but a belief in God brings an entirely different strength. This faith in itself takes on an independent entity. Religion is organized, faith is instinctive. Religion is well-defined and has people to argue in its defence or against it, faith in God has no such definition and cannot be logically defied. There are plenty of people who choose to believe in God, not because they are religious but because they would like to believe that there is a supreme energy regulating this cosmos from which we then derive our own. Their beliefs don't rest on didactic learnings or logic and hence cannot be refuted with the same.

This is not to say that I am convinced either way but just that each of the two theories cannot be proved or disproved.

Aditi, what you are talking about, is termed as 'spirituality' ... something that brings sense of belonging or brings sense of exploration in the vast universe and the mysterious nature of that. Dawkins is not at all opposed to that, you can read about that ... and he has termed it as quite different from a 'personal God'.

Aditi,

You said: Facts would be current and present understanding of things, right?

No, facts are not "current" and "present" understanding of things--facts are mind-independent. Hence, note my use of the word "metaphysical" in relation to facts and "epistemological" in relation to truths. Facts exist whether we like it or not, whether we know about it or not, whether we recognize it or not.

What you are referring to is the epistemological term--truth. Truth is the grasp of a fact in *conceptual* terms by man's mind.

Further, you said: "I don't believe I set any standard for what constitutes as appeal for reason/ logic...that to me is purely subjective. I couldn't, even if I tried, define a standard. What appeals to one person's logic doesn't always appeal to somebody else's."

Unfortunately, Aditi, that view cannot be farther from reality. There is no such thing as "private" or "personal" logic. If logic is the non-contradictory identification of metaphysical facts, then there can be no subjectivity about the method of logic, since its goal is to ascertain mind-independent, i.e., non-subjective, objective, facts.

Further, unlike Diganta's position on the existence of God--which is very empirical, concrete-bound, and similar to Dawkins'--my rejection of the existence of God is not based on current scientific evidence or statistical possibilities. Objectivism's defense of atheism is final, absolute, and solidly based on first principles of logic.

Objectivism shows that the existence of a supernatural being like God is a logical impossibility--not merely an *improbability.* Just like it is an impossibility for a circle to have 4 sides, or a triangle to have 7 sides, it is impossible for an entity like God to exist.

For a formal paper by an Objectivist on the thorough refutation of supernatural existence, check out this PDF link: http://gregperk.googlepages.com/gfats-text.pdf.

Now, why would we ascribe laws of human logic to a supernatural entity like God, you may ask. Well, because, if God were to exist, even He/She would have to abide by the laws of logic (thus, showing even more clearly, the non-subjective nature of logical principles). For example, if God were to exist, He would logically NOT be able to commit suicide, or create a heavy object that even He cannot lift, etc.

Perhaps, I shall post some of my articles on atheism here at some later point. For now, I hope this clarifies it some degree how Objectivism--Ayn Rand's philosophy--absolutely rejects the existence of God, unlike the feeble attempts of empiricists like Dawkins.

In 20 years, all you posters that believe in god and believe Dawkins is wrong in some way will be looking back and wondering why you did not think about this issue a little bit deeper now.

@#56 Diganta: Yes, I know...look at my comment #3. That is precisely what I said first. I wish religion and spirituality had been addressed.

@Ergo: Did you address the issue where I pointed out that our current and present understanding of "facts" is always in change due to the discoveries and new correlations that are made by scientific pursuits? Mind independent maybe, but scientific knowledge independent, I hope not!

Many years ago, "fact" for a person would've included things like "the Earth is flat", "The sun goes around the Earth"etc. While people in one part of the world believed one thing, scientists in the other part of the world had access to information that shed light on a new "fact". Hence the issues of :subjectivity of logic, the non-uniformity of "facts" known and the various theories accepted by people. Not everything in science is known, you know. Otherwise I wouldn't have a job :)

If you are using Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy) for this argument let me then tell you that I am neither refering to wishful thinking or just perception here I am in fact refering to "valid concepts" that are the core of objectivism. But you have to consider that our knowledge of "valid concepts" is in a constant state of update due to scientific research which by its very nature is rational. Did you know that Rand herself received criticism to have "misinterpreted" the works of many philosophers...how ironic that somebody who was attempting to demolish the case for perception in logic, ended up "misinterpreting" something and thus proving that it is indeed our perception of things that mars logic at times.

The bottomline is that you speak of philosophy but even science which is a lot more objective in its approach will not be able to completely disprove there not being a God and hence this remains a hypothesis (no matter how logically solid or strong). We have a lot of hypothesis that are logically very, very strong compared to any other theory but we still cannot get it published or call it a proven "fact". We HAVE to conduct experiments to prove or disprove it. In the scientific world there are different laboratories that just choose one hypothesis and base their entire research on the possibility of that one hypothesis eing true until of course as I stated before the null hypothesis can be rejected by a specific experiment.

There are a lot of theories that conflict with and critique objectivism but I will not get into that because frankly it is not my area of expertise. I cannot read about philosophies and then defend them or argue against them. The only philosophies I argue in favor of are my own.

Aditi, Just like any branch of Science, religion alos is for practice and not merely for beliveing. Without practising you can not realise the truth no matter how much you read, how many conferences you attend, no matter how intellegent you become.

You have to go beyong mind and intellect to understand and realise further deeper truth.

People have doe that and found ultimate reality and everybody irespective of cast creed way fo wroship color or gender has equal potential to realise that truth. Therefore my point was merely to sate that Atheism is unscinetific ideology and blocks humans mind inspiring them not go deeper in truth beyoond mind.

Digant, I do not how to react to your comment. You were absolutely right abt dulaism but my intention was simply to highlight that spritual scince is as scientific as material scineces and have further potential to search the truth. If we assume athiests are true, we can never go beyond mind. Human evolution is blocked by atheism.

Ruvy, did I anyhwere mentioned anywhere Judaism as a problem. Nope.

Jews are the victims in my opinion just like Hindus. But due to poloitical correctness `demonsing the victims' has become the trend only to garner votes of culprits.

Judaism has been mentioned due to agressiveness of Islam and christianity who both want to capture Israel.

@Man Singh: "Aditi, Just like any branch of Science, religion alos is for practice and not merely for beliveing. Without practising you can not realise the truth no matter how much you read, how many conferences you attend, no matter how intellegent you become."

Good, then just as any branch of science, it should be open to experimentation and empirical interpretation as well.

#27, Hardy:
However, I do see how Dinosaurs became extinct because there was an abrupt natural calamity but not all species (such great variety) can be explained on basis of rather infrequent natural disasters.

One may not be able to talk about natural calamity with confidence, but one can talk about 'abruptness' in massive extinction.

We have had five major extinctions so far in the history, some of which wiped out nearly 90% of the species in a very short period of time.

Abruptness is indeed an explanation for death of many species.

It is great but you should be much more careful with the grammar, spelling, etc. It needs lots of corrections. Also, I'd reformat according to some standard (APA, MLA) being sure to quote Dawkins properly for each answer. Then you should provide references for each quote. It would just look better and be more professional in appearance. People would have to take it (and you) more seriously.

-Mark

Actually, I wrote it informally. I am also concerned about my grammar, but have to depend on MS word grammar due to lack of knowledge in English :). After all, English is not my mother tongue. So, please, try to understand from the context.