I’ll kick off the debate on chapter 1 with a few questions. Feel free to add more questions for us to debate.
What does Dawkins mean by “deserved respect”?
Does religion really have “undeserved respect”?
FinalEnigma wrote:By deserved respect, I think Dawkins means respect and treatment that are properly reflective of the thing to which it is given. He does not seem to specifically address to what he is attributing this deserved respect to, however this is unnecessary. It is enough to say that some things have deserved respect, and some things do not.
I couldn’t figure out what Dawkins was referring to that deserved respect either. If he is going to bring up a concept, he should be clear as to what it means and why he brings it up. In this part of the chapter, I end up scratching my head as to his point.
The closest thing I see that he might be referring to is “Einsteinian religion”. Or is he referring to science in general that deserves respect? Or perhaps is he implying that his own books deserve respect? “All Sagan’s books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration.” (page 12)
FinalEnigma wrote:As to what undeserved respect is (which you didn’t ask, but is still important) a perfect example would be many things that fall under the protection of ‘political correctness’.
I think it’s clear that Dawkins says religion gets undeserved respect. And actually, I would not argue with him on this point. In many ways religion does have a trump card that others do not have (and probably should have).
Confused wrote:All the homeless shelters in this area that are run by religious organizations are all willing to help those less fortunate find a ground to start off with, but you must attend a daily sermon to get the help they offer. There is always that catch.
No, there’s not always a catch. But, even if there’s a catch, the shelters are not forcing anyone to listen through a sermon. I’ve volunteered several times for homeless shelters in Atlanta. Yes, they have to sit through a prayer at the beginning of the meal. Then the food is served. And there is usually a sermon afterwards, but nobody is forced to listen to it. And as a matter of fact, some usually do get up and leave at that time.
In our church, we make hundreds of sandwiches for the homeless each month. We then donate it all to a homeless shelter. We have yet to receive any sort of compensation (either through money or a body warming a pew). And we are not looking for any sort of compensation either.
Confused wrote:While I may not like Dawkins writing style, I respect the fact that he states flat out in his opening that he isn’t out to intentionally offend religion, but he isn’t going to handle it kiddie gloves either.
I respect that attitude also. However some comments throughout the book would seem to be “flame-bait”-ish.
Even the title, “The God Delusion”, I believe was chosen primarily for marketing purposes rather than an attitude of not intentionally offending. Though he states delusion is simply “a false belief or impression”, what he leaves out is it also implies the false belief is pathological. A better title might be “God: The False Hypothesis”. But, such a title would not garner as much attention as “The God Delusion”.
Furrowed Brow wrote:I find the asymmetry between the section Deserved Respect and Undeserved Respect not very well structured.
I would agree.
Furrowed Brow wrote:It seems that deserving of respect is Einstein’s pantheism.
I would agree also.
Furrowed Brow wrote:In short the chapter is not balanced; and it signals we are in for a polemic.
Make that 3 agreements with you.
Furrowed Brow wrote:The section Undeserved Respect is also where Dawkins gives himself his initial licence to go religion bashing.
Well, I think that sets the record with 4 agreements with you in a single post. 
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=109979#p109979
One point in the chapter that I agree with Dawkins is the following:
page 19 wrote:I wish that physicists would refrain from using the word God in their special metaphorical sense.
Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.
Why scientists would feel the need to use the word “God” to describe things metaphorically is beyond me. They should either use the word in its well known meaning or not use it at all. For a scientist to use a phrase as “God does not play dice with the universe” only confuses others and will inevitably be misread and misunderstood.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=110058#p110058
Cogitoergosum wrote:I guess what frustrates Dawkins (and me too) is the fact that you can argue anything with people, but somehow you just cannot argue religious belief. People get very offended and defensive. His question is why is everything up for debate but religion?
I actually agree with you and Dawkins in that I don’t believe religion should be immune from debate. People should be able to question and challenge it. It should not hide behind a shield of faith.
But, I believe it should be approached rationally and civilly. If people on differing sides have respect for one another, they are free to attack each other’s beliefs.
That is one reason I respect Michael Ruse more than Dawkins. I’ve seen Ruse debate and he has a great spirit while he debates. I don’t agree with him. And he certainly doesn’t agree with us. But, his approach is much more civil than Dawkins.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=110213#p110213
Confused wrote:
otseng wrote:
FinalEnigma wrote:By deserved respect, I think Dawkins means respect and treatment that are properly reflective of the thing to which it is given. He does not seem to specifically address to what he is attributing this deserved respect to, however this is unnecessary. It is enough to say that some things have deserved respect, and some things do not.I couldn’t figure out what Dawkins was referring to that deserved respect either. If he is going to bring up a concept, he should be clear as to what it means and why he brings it up. In this part of the chapter, I end up scratching my head as to his point.
The closest thing I see that he might be referring to is “Einsteinian religion”. Or is he referring to science in general that deserves respect? Or perhaps is he implying that his own books deserve respect? “All Sagan’s books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration.” (page 12)
I think he was quite clear in what he was referring to in regards to giving religion a special pass.
Yes, that’s clear. And that is what he was referring to with “undeserved respect”. But what is he referring to with “deserved respect”?
What other organization can get away with not being subject to legal scrutiny by the law?
Actually, if proponents of the separation of church and state really mean what they say, the church should not be obligated to be under the law of the state. But that’s for another thread.
I is simply your lack of investigating it further to see that the use of the term delusion is quite appropriate.
Here are some definitions of delusion. All of them refer to delusion as being a mental illness.
Psychotic disorders are a group of serious illnesses that affect the mind. These illnesses alter a person’s ability to think clearly, make good judgments, respond emotionally, communicate effectively, understand reality and behave appropriately. When symptoms are severe, people with psychotic disorders have difficulty staying in touch with reality and often are unable to meet the ordinary demands of daily life. However, even the most severe psychotic disorders usually are treatable.
There are different types of psychotic disorders, including:
Delusional disorder: People with this illness have delusions involving real-life situations that could be true, such as being followed, being conspired against or having a disease. These delusions persist for at least one month.
http://www.medicinenet.com/psychotic_di … rticle.htm
Delusions – false beliefs strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness
http://www.schizophrenia.com/ami/diagno … icDep.html
Even in the Wikipedia that you quoted, it says:
Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional
So, I object to the word “Delusion” being used since it strongly implies one who believes in a god has a mental illness.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=110216#p110216
Confused wrote:He claims evolutionists are attacking “would be allies”. Tell me, who started this fight? Evolutionists?
If you want to mention legal cases and determine who started what, we can go back to the Scopes trial. So, actually, yes, it would be evolutionists.
Confused wrote: His only point is that religion currently is treated as if they have deserved respect.
He goes into great length about Einstein, scientists, and such in the beginning. But why does he bring it all up and call the section “deserved respect”? He does not mention religion hardly at all in the first part of the chapter.
But nowhere does he state he is using it as a pathological disorder.
That is correct. He does not state in the book that a delusion is a pathological order. But, a delusion can be construed as a pathological disorder. And the definitions I presented shows it can be.
It’s sort of like him accusing scientists of using the word God in a metaphorical sense. One can certainly use the word God in a metaphorical sense. But by not using it in the generally accepted usage, it only invites misunderstanding. Here, Dawkins uses the word delusion for his own purposes and not with its generally accepted medical meaning. He could’ve easily chosen a title that could not be misunderstood. But, he intentionally chose it knowing its fuller implications and that it would be better for publicity and sales.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=110254#p110254
Confused wrote:Yes, he could have chosen a better word than delusion. But it is his book. And by presenting his chosen usage of the word, he isn’t out of line using it. Because it offends you is simply your own sensitivities.
Actually, I’m not too offended by it’s usage. Just making the personal observation that he knew that by using a controversial word (instead of a more accurate word) that it would bolster sales.
Dawkins is presenting his case from the standpoint of probability and evidence.
Actually, I see none of this in the book. But, when we get to the appropriate chapters, feel free to present the probabilities and evidence against God.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=110380#p110380
BohemianBanjo wrote: So, you dislike the use of the word delusion because of the pathological connotations, but you suggest hypothesis? As in The God Hypothesis?
It is Dawkins that introduces the word hypothesis, not me. “Contrary to Huxley, I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other.” (page 50)
God is not a hypothesis. There is no collection of alternatives, no outline of predictions, no list of testable outcomes delineating just how God is falsifiable, etc.
To you it might not be. But it is clearly a scientific hypothesis to Dawkins.
Delusion may be provocative, but it fits the book very well.
Since Dawkins states that it is a scientific hypothesis, delusion is then not appropriate.
You’ll have to convince us that he doesn’t really care about the subject, and is just writing for a buck.
I’ve never stated that he doesn’t care about the subject or is just writing for a buck.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=111878#p111878