This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet - Comments

DrShell's Avatar Comment 1 by DrShell


This old crapola again.

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:20:00 UTC | #62882

adriang63's Avatar Comment 2 by adriang63

He divides the world into two camps: good, tolerant atheists who believe in science and evil-minded, intolerant believers who try to counteract science.
One is left to wonder if Father Ulf Jonsson SJ. Svenska Dagbladet could be projecting, in this case.


Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:46:00 UTC | #62886

Dax's Avatar Comment 3 by Dax

[...] or does not even make an effort to understand them

What is there to understand? "Oh, you believe to know the mind of our unproven Creator, though he cannot be known using our feeble human abilities." No, I still don't understand it.

You cannot fully understand something that is made up and has no real verifiable framework to compare it to.

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:46:00 UTC | #62887

philosowizer's Avatar Comment 4 by philosowizer

That was a horrible article.

"As to the problem with the infinite regress, other thinkers have already come up with alternative solutions, which Dawkins does not seem to be aware of. One is that God is unique in as much as he is his own cause and that God therefore is the very solution of the regress problem."

When will these people get it through their thick heads you can't create God from nothing either. And as Dawkins says "Now your stuck with explaining the existence of God."

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:52:00 UTC | #62888

Yorker's Avatar Comment 5 by Yorker

I soon as I saw this was written by a "Father", I read no further, I'll leave that to you masochists. ;)

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:55:00 UTC | #62889

panajache69's Avatar Comment 6 by panajache69

Dawkins is attacked as dividing the world into two camps - good atheists and evil believers. I think the two camps are actually those with B.S. detectors and those without B.S. detectors.

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:56:00 UTC | #62890

Janus's Avatar Comment 7 by Janus

It seems to me that if I had to write a review of a book several months after its publication, I would take a look at a few of the reviews which have been written already and I would try to say something mildly original.

There isn't a single point in there that hasn't been refuted a thousand times in the comments posted on this very site, for the FSM's sake.

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:03:00 UTC | #62891

Ohnhai's Avatar Comment 8 by Ohnhai

though I thought the third and fourth paragraphs were a prety decent summation of TGD.



also, I've noticed a new trend. this problem the initial cause needing to be complicated if the ideas of creation by a being are to be believed. THis fella (and several others) seem to be suggesting that as complex can arise from simple that the initial cause and thus creator could well be simple.

Are they really trying to suggest that they are happy to down grade their god from all powerful to less then the simplest life form? It would be truly funny if they were.

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:11:00 UTC | #62894

AnthSynthasome's Avatar Comment 9 by AnthSynthasome

"We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides." Ignatius of Loyola, Spanish founder of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits - S.J.), Exercitia spirtualia, 1541.

In light of this, I am decidedly unimpressed with any of Padre Jonsson's, S.J. bleating on this subject. How someone could consign our greatest faculties, reason and skepticism, is beyond me.

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:16:00 UTC | #62895

Quine's Avatar Comment 10 by Quine

Again we see the attempt to use logic without regard to one of its fundamental principals: a false premise implies any conclusion.

The assumption of the existence (without evidence) of a supernatural power, provides the false premise upon which an argument, to any doctrine of choice, may be constructed. Most fundamentalists are at least honest enough to admit that they just believe what they have been told (read in scripture) to believe.

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:20:00 UTC | #62896

robotaholic's Avatar Comment 11 by robotaholic

It seems to me that Professor Richard Dawkins dichotomizes the two sides to the argument quite correctly...

1. those who believe in invisible people with superpowers (intolerant believers who try to counteract science)

2. people who don't (good, tolerant atheists)

and yes, you're right, these stupid objections to TGD have soooo been stated and restated to DEATH - If I were RD, I wouldn't read critical reviews anymore, just ignore them - they're always wrong.(usually I wouldn't say that except when its anything verses cold, hard, repeatable and tested science, anything loses.)

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:42:00 UTC | #62904

notsobad's Avatar Comment 12 by notsobad

"He divides the world into two camps: good, tolerant atheists who believe in science and evil-minded, intolerant believers who try to counteract science."

Once you start with straw men, your argument is dead.

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:44:00 UTC | #62905

BAEOZ's Avatar Comment 13 by BAEOZ

As to the problem with the infinite regress, other thinkers have already come up with alternative solutions, which Dawkins does not seem to be aware of. One is that God is unique inasmuch as he is his own cause and that God therefore is the very solution of the regress problem.

And I could postulate a giant donut, mmm sweet donuts, that is the divine torus and is calling us to eat donuts with pink icing, for that is his favorite type. This donut has always been and will always be. Being a torus, it is circular, with a hole in the middle, and thus has no beginning or end, it just is. This removes any problem of who baked the divine donut, no infinte baker and flour regress problem. Of course, this donut cannot not be measured and is not of this world, it is this world, so don't even try.
QED. The creator of the universe is a divine donut, and those who don't eat donuts are bound not to be sweet enough to be accomodated in its heavenly hole.

To reiterate
a false premise implies any conclusion.

Thanks Quine!

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:36:00 UTC | #62916

Henri Bergson's Avatar Comment 14 by Henri Bergson

Sweden is destroying itself at the moment by 'accepting' all cultures & religions.

Last year the Swedish courts didn't pass sentence on a muslim who beat his wife because in his culture that sort of behaviour was the norm, and it would be 'intolerant' to jail him.

Sweden's 3rd city, Malmö, has been predicted to be the first European city with a muslim majority.

This foolish priest says that Dawkins' atheism is dangerous as we 'need a sensible dialogue between [sic] different cultures', not sensible atheism...

Sweden, wake up and smell your great coffee!!

(Thank Odin the God Delusion has been translated into Swedish though.)

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:50:00 UTC | #62921

dancingthemantaray's Avatar Comment 15 by dancingthemantaray

"He brings out ancient proofs of the existence of God but leaves fresher and sharper arguments aside"

Like what?

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:05:00 UTC | #62925

Inferno's Avatar Comment 16 by Inferno

I liked the first third of the article, but then it falls into the usual drivel of claiming there are proofs of god that Dawkins hasn't discussed, but never mentions what these are.

The alternatives to the origin of the universe and god are good enough as food for thought, but the author draws the wrong conclusion. There are an infinte ways a god MAY exist, but without any evidence, isn't it more likely that none of them are true?

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:49:00 UTC | #62944

phasmagigas's Avatar Comment 17 by phasmagigas

the fairy that lives in the bottom of my carnivorous pitcher plant also created itself, quite astonishing so i need not ponder how it came to be anymore.

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:59:00 UTC | #62950

sabre_truth's Avatar Comment 18 by sabre_truth

P1. A is A

P2. Every effect differs in some way from its cause.

Then, if God is His own cause, it follows that God differs in someway from Himself. That is, God is not God, a contradiction.

Therefore we conclude that God is not His own cause, or either P1 or P2 is false.

If we are to insist that God is His own cause, then we have an example where A is not A. Some people might be willing to drop the law of identity, and with it the entire edifice of logic. If not, then they must accede that an effect can be identical to its cause, in which case we would have no means of determining a which is the cause and which is the effect, and in fact the entire concept of causality would be rendered senseless.

To put it another way: Is the God who caused God the same or different from the God who was caused by God? If the same, then God did not cause God, and if different, then God is not God.

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:01:00 UTC | #62968

HappyPrimate's Avatar Comment 19 by HappyPrimate

After reading the whole of the article, I found he finally says what he wants to say - Dawkins is not playing fair with the believers. Dawkins should be nicer and more reverent to those who believe. It is not nice to be so blunt just because we are so deluded we cannot see beyond our noses. We like being deluded so go away and let us get on with our make-believe lives because most of us are harmless.

At least it looks like the good Father actually may have read the book.

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:59:00 UTC | #62979

Electric Monk's Avatar Comment 20 by Electric Monk

... pity he didn't understand it.

"He brings out ancient proofs of the existence of God but leaves fresher and sharper arguments aside."

We keep on hearing about these more recent proofs but we're NEVER told what they are or who thought of them! - Maybe we should just have faith in their existence?

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:17:00 UTC | #62980

Inferno's Avatar Comment 21 by Inferno

I have to say, I do like the title to the article: "There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet".

Almost beats my other favourite: "Hitchens to God: Drop Dead".

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:57:00 UTC | #62994

82abhilash's Avatar Comment 22 by 82abhilash

If this is the best argument a Swede can come up with in defense of religion, then Dawkins has nothing to worry. The Swedish edition of his book will also be a best seller. A new class of militant atheists will arise in Sweden and they will keep the Muslim immigrants under check. For their own sake, they better.

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:56:00 UTC | #63000

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Comment 23 by Oromasdes1978

At first I was interested in what this guy was saying, as HappyPrimate pointed out, he does actually look like he has read the book rather than skimmed over it like many others who criticised it.
I even for a small 5th of a millisecond thought he would actually have some worthwhile things to criticise about the book (I love the God Delusion but I like to hear about what others think about it as well). I apologise to you all for indulging in such madness for such a long period of time but I am human after all!!

I love the way it mostly comes down to "Well, sorry, you don't know who or what my god is, he is above your petty amazing intellectual discussions and reasoning, he is more than that...what ever that actually is!"

Oh dear!

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:46:00 UTC | #63026

Moridin's Avatar Comment 24 by Moridin

Yes finally! I'm from Sweden (but I read the English version).

This is exactly what Sweden needs, even though it is the least religious country in the world. This will push the majority in-the-middle people to reject religion.

The Swedish titles will be Illusionen om Gud (The Illusion of God) and Atheismens Illusioner (The Illusions of Atheism).

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:14:00 UTC | #63050

Prufrock's Avatar Comment 25 by Prufrock

I must have learning difficulties! I read what people like Father Ulf Jonsson have to say every time, and not just read it, I mean read it, until the very end, in the vain hope I might actually read something vaguely evidential or even interesting. But no ... just the same, tired old psuedo nonsense. I remember Dr Benway suggesting people google logical fallacies to learn how to pick out bad logic and to construct truthful logic. Maybe the people who need to do the googling most are the people who write articles like this. I've heard all of this so many times; maybe the perpetrators believe a lie becomes true the more you tell Mmmmmm... yawn.

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:33:00 UTC | #63056

magetoo's Avatar Comment 26 by magetoo

Untranslated Swedish version here, for those who might prefer that.

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 02:26:00 UTC | #63071

cutemartin's Avatar Comment 27 by cutemartin

"First he wants to prove that God does not exist"

No, he doesn't. The clue is in the chapter title "Why there almost certainly is no god". Not that hard to understand.

"and that religion is intellectually second-rate" Again no, he shows that faith is intellectually vacuous. It is not that religion is the result of poor thinking, but of a complete lack of reasoning.

Perhaps he means that Dawkins is suggesting that religious people are second-rate intellectually. He (RD) isn't, but perhaps if they could show they understand Dawkins' book rather than misrepresent it (see my first point!), they would do a better job of showing their intellectual prowess...

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 03:41:00 UTC | #63086

GBile's Avatar Comment 28 by GBile

As to the problem with the infinite regress, other thinkers have already come up with alternative solutions, which Dawkins does not seem to be aware of. One is that God is unique inasmuch as he is his own cause and that God therefore is the very solution of the regress problem

An alternative 'alternative solution' might be that 'something' might have been its own cause and that this something's only achievement was to set in motion a chain of events, ultimately resulting in, among other things (?), the Big-Bang-birth of our universe.

Every 'Father' in the world could arbitrarily call this uncaused 'something' God, but any linkage to behavior as 'singing on Sundays', 'bowing on carpets in a certain direction', 'wearing patches of cloth on the head' will take a lot of additional thinking (or imagination).

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:05:00 UTC | #63091

Misha Vargas's Avatar Comment 29 by Misha Vargas

Father Ulf Jonsson is using slightly warped versions of what Dr. D actually wrote. Here is one example:

Dawkins declares......Religion is a by-product of evolution and has survived since mankind has benefited from it.

That latter half is not quite right, from what I remember. It could be true, but Dawkins actually gave an alternative hypothesis.

And I wish he had quoted the book when he stated this:

He does admit here and there that not all believers are fundamentalists and that there are even some very prominent scientists who believe in God. However, he finds that extremely puzzling, even to the extent that he wonders whether they really are believers or have allowed themselves to be bribed by religious organisations.

I don't remember that bit about bribery, can anyone find what Father Ulf is referring to? Maybe the translation was bad?

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:50:00 UTC | #63101

pewkatchoo's Avatar Comment 30 by pewkatchoo

Just one more piece of worthless nonsense. However, I wonder who is his audience given that Sweden is supposed to be firmly secular and atheistic.

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:11:00 UTC | #63108