Dean Burnett: Why aren't religious views classed as delusions or Well, it shouldn't be, because as they say, “You talk to God, you're religious. In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins labels God and belief in God as “delusions.” Dawkins is a gifted writer, and his position at a leading university in. The God Delusion is a best-selling book by English biologist Richard Dawkins, a professorial fellow at New College, Oxford and former holder of the Country: United Kingdom.
|Author:||Ellis Dietrich II|
|Published:||26 March 2017|
|PDF File Size:||16.73 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||25.72 Mb|
|Uploader:||Ellis Dietrich II|
More astounding than the universe even, is the human body.
The God Delusion
An entire blueprint god is no delusional the human body is carried in each of the little cells, whose membranes are so astronomically complex that entire college courses could be taught on them.
I'm not even going to go into the brain. Which turns out to be a good thing, considering the God most Americans believe in is a crazy, vengeful, ego-maniacal monster.
Some of the main arguments: The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable". Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty.
Why religious belief isn't a delusion – in psychological terms, at least | Science | The Guardian
Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable see Occam's razor and that an omniscient or omnipotent God must be extremely complex Dawkins argues that it is logically impossible for a God to be simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent.
As such he argues god is no delusional the god is no delusional of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.
Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product — a misfiring of something useful"  as for example the mind's employment of intentional stance.
Dawkins suggests that the theory of memesand human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, can explain how religions might spread like "mind viruses" across societies.
Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: In conclusion, accepting the chance hypothesis is tantamount to rejecting the existence of our own universe!
Since premises one and two are true, it follows that supernatural design is the most reasonable explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe god is no delusional permit human life.
The above statement, which is a contention to the design argument is flawed for two main reasons.
Firstly, anyone with a basic understanding of the philosophy of science will conclude that in the inference to the best explanation, the best explanation does not require an explanation!
The following example illustrates this point.
They would be completely justified in inferring that these finds were not the result of any biological process but the products of an unknown civilization.
However if some skeptics were to argue that we cannot make such inferences because we god is no delusional not know anything about this civilization, how they lived and who created them, would that make the archaeologists conclusions untrue?
Secondly, if we take this contention seriously it could undermine the very foundations of science and philosophy themselves. If we require an explanation for the basic assumptions of science, for example god is no delusional the external world exists, where do you think our level of scientific progress would be?
Additionally if we were to apply this type of question to every attempt at explaining the explanation, we would end up with an infinite regression of explanations.
And an infinite god is no delusional of explanations would defeat the whole purpose of science in the first place — which is to provide an explanation! He raises this objection because he feels that a supernatural designer is just as complex as design.
But a supernatural designer, in other words God, is one of the simplest concepts understood by all. This opinion is expressed by many Philosophers including the famous atheist turned theist Professor Anthony Flew.
Just because God can do complex things does not make him complex, it seems to me that Dawkins confuses ability with nature.