Dawkins refers to a God Delusion ok, but theres a powerful phenomenona going on here which needs proper study?

Question

Throughout the world and throughout time, most people and societies have believed in a 'God' of some sort. THAT, is an observable scientific/historical FACT ,it deserves study in a rational scientific approach , rather than a simplistic dissmissal.
The analogy of the flying teapot is childish too: There is no evidence that countless societies and cultures have believed in a flying teapot, there is evidence that countless independant cultures and societies have believed in a supernatural creator 'God' as a way of explaining their existence. There is a reason and primitive logic why they might believe in a God. There is no reason or logic why we might believe in a flying teapot, the analogy is a poor one for Dawkins to borrow. Agree?

I myself am an agnostic, i have no religious beliefs assuch. Dawkins himself when pushed, admits to being an agnostic. The reason i feel the teapot anology to be weak is that there IS a primitive logic to believing there is a God ie an ultimate creative force, What logic (primitive or other) is there for having a
utensil for making cups of tea in space? Non, As for fairies and dragons, no i do not believe in them, however yes their mythical origins are certainly worth study (and i am sure many scholars have taken this up)

Answer 1

Dawkins is not one of militant Antitheism's better apologists.He has added nothing to the arguments which were presented better (and no more conviningly,IMHO) by19th and 20th century atheists.
Dawkins has been accurately IMHO compared to an emotive tent revivalist who attacks and sneers at anyone who does not "buy" or threatens his faith opinions . Dawkins manifesto opinions are as about as scientific and as much faith/credulity-based as that of any other person labeled "fundamentalist"or pre- scientific.. Dawkins anger at those who dissent from his reductiones ad absurdum seems to be that of someone not particularly secure in his faith proclamations.
Dawkins seems to be not well versed in general philosophy,including atheistic philosophies,let alone the best of Western and Eastern religious philosophy and discussions.
. Dr. Charles Taylor of Mc Gill U,Montreal, hit the nail on the head when he said in a Tablet interview:
" I mean if you take a position like that of a Dawkins,anybody who has any religious belief is a potential danger.....I think that anyposition thattries to delegitimatize the questions or pretends that all ...are answered already...doesn't understand a thing that is going on in human history ."

Answer 2

I won't read the answers before me as I can guess what most of them will say *yawn*

I agree with you totally.
Who is Dawkins anyway except just a man with limited man's thinking? God is more powerful than that.
He's obviously trying to make the belief of a God sound stupid by using a stupid analogy.
The thing is, people like him dont even consider God in the first place. That's like anyone wanting to get to the truth of an accident without listening to all the eye-witnesses evidence isn't it? Now who's the stupid one?

Yes. I agree, the analogy of the flying teapot is a poor attempt at ridiculing the idea of God's existence.

Answer 3

That's a folk legend; not a phenomena. While many societies have believed in a creator, ideas do spread and it's likely that one tribe came up with the idea in the first place, and spread it to others.

Not a single 'creationist' society has ever managed to scape together any solidly-documented evidence for their assertions, by the way.

Religion is also subject to millions of dollars in research funding that could be better spent curing hunger and disease - however the research continues, because people just won't accept that the universe doesn't care which side their bread is buttered.

Answer 4

Most people may have believed in a god. But how did they reach that belief? I doubt that they all independently discovered a god on their own without some input from other believers.
Most people may have been persuaded that there was a god by, I suspect, a relatively small number of persuasive zealots and leaders. Also, there have been many times in history when it has definitely been unsafe for anyone to say other than that they believe.
Could I suggest that a better subject for study would be why so many people have been susceptible to persuasion by some fairly dodgy preachers that a god exists?
Or why it happens in modern times? If you think it doesn't, ask yourself how and why so many people believed and followed Hitler? Why do so many people believe in those dreadful televangelists in America?

Answer 5

Dawkins actually DOES address the issue you mention... though I wish he would have addressed it more.

He talks about how we (as humans) evolved an ability to understand the motivations of other humans and animals by understanding an animating spirit.

When you assume there is an animating spirit in something, you start to understand its intent - (e.g. does that bear intend to attack me, or is it just making a false charge. Does that stranger intend to kill me or does he want to trade food for a hand ax?).

There are many others that have gone much further with these ideas on how religion evolved (from societies needing a system of knowing who to trust and how, to run away myths).

But it is important to understand something here that The Great Gazoo pointed out: Even YOU would agree that most humans have held false beliefs for most of their existence (faeries, dragons, etc.). It is worth understanding, but we can not conclude from it that any of these things are real.


Your criticism of the "teapot argument" only has a point in that more people believe in the God argument - not in the quality of the argument itself.


BTW, I applaud you. This is one of the most intelligent questions I've seen from a believer on here.

Answer 6

The reason most people believed in God in the past was the precarious lifestyle of hunters or early agriculture. A sacrifice to a god to ensure a fruitful hunt or harvest helped assure survival of the entire population.

Yes, study of the origins of belief in God would be a very interesting course of study.

I believe in God because as I look thru my telescope, I can see the remarkable order of the creation of the universe. I can see the wisdom of putting our moon where it is. I am awestruck by the beauty of Saturn's ring system and I am amazed by the shear size of galaxy clusters and the known universe. I believe in God because I have seen His work.

Answer 7

I do agree. As an atheist myself, i feel that the completely arrogant, dismissive attitudes of Richard Dawkins, Jonathan Miller et al. is as offensive and doctrinaire as any religious bigotry.
I do think though, that it is unsurprising that all primitive peoples came up with the idea of some external force/es controlling their world- they were all essentially observing the same phenomena; the elements, the motion of 'heavenly bodies' etc.
And I find it unsurprising that, having made the assumption of a 'controlling force' primitive peoples made the leap to 'personification' eg, that the forces were controlled by some intelligence.-after all the people themselves possessed intelligence, and it was that intelligence which gave them some control over their own environment.
To say that these phenomena are worthy of study is of course true, but to assume they have not been studied, and will not continue to be studied is a little fatuous i think.
Anyway, all this is my 'rationalist' take on how things are- I wouldn't want to be so arrogant as to brand as delusional anyone who disagreed with me.

Answer 8

Yep, and it's for religious history majors to study. There is no science here. A mass delusion is not science. Unless of course they all separately came up with the same god - but they didn't, obviously. There have been over 10,000 different gods worshiped throughout history.

Answer 9

There are those among us who think that The God Delusion IS that proper study of religion. Try reading it.

The teapot argument is not an argument against God, it is an argument against agnosticism. Again, read something for once, think what your brain could do if you tried using it.

Answer 10

lol, i really think you have missd the point of dawkins. if you actually bother to read between the lines the book is extreme and hilarious.

he may have meant it to be serious, but i'm sure it was also meant to wind everyone up a bit (tongue in cheek).

there's also a lot of truth, but a lot of ranting as well. i personally am an atheist, but take his book with a pinch of salt.