My Response to the Claims of Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion"

A "quasi-mystical" response to nature and the universe has no connection with supernatural belief.

Logic: Since two different people can feel the same awe and wonder in response to similar experiences in nature, yet come to different conclusions regarding the feelings origins, and because these feelings are common among people, there can be no connection between these feelings and supernatural belief.

Counter Argument: Couldn't some missinterpret the feelings? Couldn't some be wrong? Indeed, some must be wrong. Well then, isn't it possible that some are right?

Dawkins is assuming that there is nothing supernatural about our feelings. Yes, men may observe nature and choose to credit its glory with that of different gods, or different truths, and surely they cannot all be right, but what if the men were being "touched" emotionally by the same force-a force that one could rightly be regarded as "supernatural". Can one so easily dismiss feelings of awe and wonder as residual effects of once needed or currently required survival traits? Well, Dawkin does. How does Dawkin's explain such feelings? The commonality of experience when it comes to feelings of awe only for such specific manifestations of the glory of creation seems to indicate that something/someone is telling us that what we are seeing is indeed great--this supernatural effect is telling us that "yes, I am here" and "yes, I am great".

2.13
The word God should only be used "to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'"

Logic: Since people are confused as to whether a scientist's evidence directly supports the idea that a god exists...when that scientist uses the word "God", and since this confusion compromises the integrity of science, and since the integrity of science is reliant on clarity and fact, the term God ought not be used by scientists.

Who is Dawkins to say that scientists cannot use the entirety of the english language to convey concepts which they feel are real, such as God. No one these days is for censorship of thought and speech. Perhaps a scientist understands the laws of the universe as constituting a controlling entity-one grand, glorious force. Perhaps a scientists believes that even after a million years studying the universe,
3.14 There is nothing beyond the natural, physical world

There are things we do not understand. Consciousness can be identified as a whole body, or brain experience, and can be turned off or affected by drugs, but it consists not of a physical thing, but a complex interaction between physical things. It is like an energy, a force which one might consider lying outside the natural, physical world--atleast in the common sense of those words.

New physics are arriving daily that both challenge and expand our understanding of what is real, what can exist, and what does exist. Quantum Mechanics, String Theory...I have but the most basic understanding of these, but they do seem to indicate that there may be an infinite number of "unnatural" ways to manipulate the physical world we are familiar with.

And what of physcic phenomena? Thought transferral through space does not seem for a moment to be explainable through our present understanding of the physical, natural laws of the universe.

4. 14 There is no supernatural creative intelligence.

Why be so presumptous? I know Dawkin's argument; still, I find it highly unimaginative. Human's have really only begun to employ the intelligence they have. The use of reason and science-and the morality and technology which has followed-has been in great force for only a few thousand years, and only in the last two hundred has it resulted in humans "designing" anything that I'd consider complex (engines, computers, spaceships). Considering this, and considering that beings may have existed throughout the universe for millions or billions of years before we appeared on the scene; wouldn't it follow that the potential for design-for planning and manipulating matter and energy-is enormous. Wouldn't it follow that it is highly likely that a creative intelligence exists, and could certainly involve itself in the creation & survival of our species?

5. 14 There is no soul that outlasts the body.

Ah, right, another absurd religious claim. I wonder if Dawkins has looked into accounts of near-death experiences. A part of his book does give quick treatment to personal experiences of a supposedly supernatural nature. However, it is not so easy to dismiss as mental trickery something thousands(?) of people have experienced which involves the same images and occurances in the same sequence. Moving towards a light, meeting a deceased relative, feeling immense comfort, being given the choice to continue or to go back-these sorts of things can't be brusquely dismissed as visions created by the mind, can they? Near death experiences, psychic phenomenon, emotional transferrance, etc ought to be considered as possible evidence for the existence of a soul which outlasts the body.

6. 14 There are no miracles except in natural phenom we don't understand.

Again, I wonder who would argue that miracles aren't natural phenom we don't yet understand. A person who believes in miracles could easily accept that God, or a supreme intelligence, would manipulate the universe in a natural way to create a miracle. Of course, the methods used by God would be so far beyond those ever capable of humans, that the glory of the miracle would not be diminished. Is it so wrong to call such a power as God's a "supernatural" power-meaning only that it is utterly beyond our ability and understanding, not that it is unnatural. The "super" could be synonymous with "advanced" as opposed to "beyond". Is it wrong to simply accept that there could exist power and intelligence so far advanced than our own, that we'd be silly to think ourselves capable or worthy of ever obtaining it for ourselves?

7.15+ (opinion) The words "God" and "Religion" should not be used in descriptions of ideas which are not of the traditional religious sense, in order to avoid confusion.

See 2.13

8. 15+ (opinion) Religion should not be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect in a different class than other sets of values and systems of belief/living.

It is not the fault of believers that unbelievers have not secured a foundation and system from which to guide their lives. Perhaps when they do, and when they formalize it in such a way so others may recognize it, their "religion" will be granted a thicker wall of respect as well.

One's religious identity makes up so much of one's own identity. And it is of the most meaningful and profound part of that identity. It is so extraordinarily impolite-it is such an invasion of one's privacy-to dismiss their beliefs as mere opinions or simple claims, when in fact their believes are they. Attacking religious conviction is, to them, a personal attack. If you succeed in breaking down their beliefs, you are threatening to destroy them as a person--or atleast it may seem so in their eyes. Individuality and the pride of individual belief are inseperable in our culture. The simple fact is that this holds true for believers, and if non believers fail to have such strong convictions, then that is their choice. It is declared conviction that should be respected, because we respect an individual's right to form convictions, and we respect individuals in this liberal culture.

9. 31 The God Hypothesis-"There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberatly designed and created the universe and everything in it"-is wrong.

This claim is wrong, but only in a logical sense. It is right by implying that a definitive statement affirming the existence of God is not well supported by clear, overwhelming, correlating evidence or reason. Dawkin's statement is wrong by its implication of definitive knowledge that the Hypothesis is wrong. The author admits in the book that he cannot be 100% certain that God does not exist. Since it seems as though Dawkins did not give due credit to potential & possibility of the development of Super-Intelligence; and since he did not delve into various problems associated with the origin, complexity, and code-like nature of replicating genes; and since he did not give treatment to more specific, scientific challenges to evolution in support of design; his concession that there's less than a .01 chance that God exists seems to manifest a very closed, biased mind.

10. 31 "Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution."

What is "gradual"? Is 46 million years, during which time human ancestors were allegedly rat-like creatures, gradual? In 1/20th of one billion years, or 1/80th of the time since the earth formed, or 1/320th(?) of the time since the big bang, "humans" evolved from scurrying little furry creatures. I'm sure my assessment of the age of the universe is terribly off, still the point remains; yeah, 4 billion years is a long long time relative to the life of the average person, but its possible that other beings in other parts of the galaxy or universe had a billion year head start on us. That is sufficient time to become sufficiently complex to design some extremely awesome stuff. So, I'm agreeing with Dawkin's here, but adding that this does not mean a god-like being could not exist.

We know for a fact that the time between first imagining something and successfully creating it from a design is but a teeny-tiny fraction of the age of the universe. Intelligent humans have Designed a million things-some as challenging to the universe's natural order as the A-bomb, particle accelerators, and design-in-velocity, and they've done so in 500 years of 4 billion+.

Do these things we've invented have to do with our survival? If we ever face conditions which threaten our survival, will we rely on evolution or intelligent design to save us? Does the imergence of intelligence mean the death of human evolution? I'd postulate that any evolution that occurs from here on out that effects humans physical nature will be a willful evolution.

No, Dawkins does not give enough credit to intelligent design. Something capable of designing something else can be designed, if you follow. I could imagine such a thing being designed by humans during my lifetime.

11. 36 God as an old man with a white beard is an irrelevant distraction.

If one concedes that we are the product of a benelovent designer/creator, what does it matter how it/he/she is envisioned? The image of god as an old man with a white beard simply implies the sentiment that the creator is knowledgable, wise, someone with greater authority than others, and possibly sentimental/caring. There may be little reason for attaching these traits to a creator, but given that the grandest assumption has already been committed-that God exists-, these traits are small, minor assumptions that are not unreasonable considering their simply claims.

12. 36 It is silly to believe in such a god.

If intelligence is the grand product of evolution, then why is it silly to embody a grand intelligence in an image which most humans can relate to? Even a strict evolutionist has got to marvel at intelligence and wouldn't be blamed for celebrating it, for constructing an image to represent its pentacle.

13.37 Religion was spread by the sword.

A single conversion resulting from reason and heartfelt searching nullifys this point. If no one was ever killed for their beliefs, religion would still exist because of its more positive attributes.

14. 38 God is not a "personal God".

If I was God I'd be offended! Yes, its apparant that God does not talk to us "personally". In fact, only a handful of people claim to really talk to God (Mormon prophets, Pope?, others). At any rate, I do not see a problem with the notion that God's mind can be glimpsed by observing the human's mind, as a human's mind is the only thing we know of that is a "creative intelligence", other than natural evolution.

15. 39 America's founding fathers were secularists and mostly deists and atheists.

This observation has not point other than to rub the fact in christian's face. Still, if most claimed to be deists, which I don't doubt, they would have more in common with Christians than they would athiests. In your face, Dawkins! the founding fathers were on OUR side! (kidding)

16.50 God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice.

If a scientific fact is only discoverable in principle and not in practice, its not really discoverable. God's existence or non-existence must not be a scientific fact. At any rate, yeah, this should be discoverable in practice--we've just got to keep practicing.

17.52 Bertrand Russell: "It is a mistake to put the burden of proof on sceptics. The burden of proof lies on dogmatists."

No, I'd say the burden of proof falls on anyone who is cares enough about whether God exists or not. If my life could change dramatically based on whether or not I accepted someone's claim that a teapot orbited the sun, I'd go out of my way to try to either prove or disprove it. Yes, there is an infinite number of ridiculous claims that could be made, but only a handful of widely considered ones that create profound consequences for me.

18.53 Believing in God is as absurd as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Mother Goose, the Flying Spagetti Monster, or that a china teapot circles the sun.

Come now, do billions of people truly believe in these other things as they do God? Did Mother Goose allegedly inspire Holy Scripture and found a religion?
Religion's history, size, and influence may not be proof of God's existence, but I do think its reason enough to give its claims greater respect than the whimsical fictional creations of pop culture.

19.55 The fact that something is undisprovable is not felt by reasonable people to be "the kind of fact that settles any interesting argument."

True, but it does settle things in a small sense. It reveals that real truth about things which lie outside our ability to sense them is nearly impossible to prove or disprove completely. As Dawkin's admits of God, there is an small chance, however infinetismal, that he exists.

20.54 God's existence is highly improbable

Its something of a stretch to make such a statement when we do not know the nature of God. If you say its improbable because he'd have to be outrageously complex, you still must admit that there may be things which are indeed outrageously complex which we do not, or can not understand. If you say his existence is improbable because no one has seen nor heard him, you still must recognize that there is much we do not see or hear. In fact, Dawkin's concludes his book by comparing what we are capable of seeing as only the minimum necessary for us to survive. Its as though we are looking out of a slit in a veil (or something like that).

21.55 Scientists are qualified to comment on the existence of God

Their comment can only equate to: "We have not discovered a God." Determining true probability of something, like the probability I will leave my apartment today, or the probability that I will die before I'm 70, requires observation. We have not observed a God, therefore, we cannot make probability statements about him. We can draw some correlations if we have atleast one simple observation to work with-like, "Life exists on Earth". We can observe what conditions are necessary for life's immergence and survival and try to locate other parts of the universe where such conditions are present. With a single observation, we are left to guess whether something exists-although we can determine whether or not its possible to exist. With more than one observation, I believe probability might be able to factor into intellectual consideration. Without a single observation of God, however, I do not understand how scientists could determine the probability of his existence.

22.61 Evolution provides an explanation for the existence of entities whose improbability would otherwise, for practical purposes, rule them out.

I'm not sure what probability has to do with this discussion. A "complex" creature exists. It is a fact. The probability that it might come into existence is 100% because it is here. If one accepts that things were much much differnt 4 billion years ago, and the creature did not exist then; then the question of how it came to be is what our examination should focus on. Either evolution and adaptations works or it does not. Most scientists believe that it does.

However, with my elementary understanding of evolution, I can't see how evolution is not only a partial explanation. Mainly, the problems lie in how life emerged in the first place, and how mutations on the atomic/microscopic level equate to mutations on the larger scale, which offer real survival advantages over the status quo and instinct. Also, there is the question of how evolution explains dramatic pysiological changes over relatively short periods. Other's have questioned how evolution explains "building up" instead of "breaking down", as seems to be what is observed in nature.

23.62 The God Hypothesis and Darwinism are mutually exclusive and are "close to being irreconcilably different".

Yes, this is true if one takes Genesis literally.

24.63 An expansive, well-funded study concluded that prayer had no positive affect on heart patients; in fact, those who knew they were being prayed for suffered a significantly greater number of problems and complications.

Wild, so there was a negative correlation. Wouldn't the fact that there was a correlation at all provide some sort of support for the proposition that God intervened? Ok, bad argument, I know.

Still, it may be reasonable to believe that god would not reward prayers which were made as a result of a scientific study, instead of purely self-motivated prayers. Besided, even if prayers were not answered, does this rule out the existence of God? You can't dissprove god, nanananananaaa!

25.64 The logic theologians claim God would use to justify why he answers some prayers and not others is absurd. (Some people need to be sick for their own spiritual health) (Too much evidence of God's existence might not be good for us)

What is absurd about this? People "need" to be sick in order not to be sick (immunization)-this is a natural law. And hard times can strenghen character-this is a fact. And finally, if God exists, he obviously wants to keep us guessing about his existence, otherwise why wouldn't we remember our lives before birth and why wouldn't we be able to see God...etc. These are not absurd but reasonable explanations, as well as factual explanations (the first two).

26.77 "If we allow the dubious luxery of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name...there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God. (omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, etc)

I have already provided one or two reasons for doing so. (intelligence in, intelligence out--the beginning and the end [god and man], and the universe in between.

27.78 Calling the Big Bang God "is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading."

An opinion. Its not unhelpful if you believe it and want to reconcile it with the rest of the universe...

28.79 The "argument for Degree" is ridiculous. Things vary in degree of a certain trait, not particularly perfection. (implied:) Something is more or less a trait-red, smelly, hairy-something is not more or less perfect. God is not the maximum that sets the standard for perfection.

This is a pretty big claim. So what you're saying is that there is no good or bad? Sure, good or bad may be subjective, but they do exist, therefore there must be something we can imagine that is the best, that is perfect to us. I'm not sure how this supports any claim of what's real or true. Because something can be imagined, or because we are able to observe traits, make comparisons, and determinations, doesn't mean anything but what they mean.

Still, its reasonable to assume that any intelligent being has developed a keen sense of what is good or bad to it. And it is reasonable to assume that the good has been sought after since the time it has come into being, and if that time constitutes times millions or billions of years, the degree of goodness which the being has probably achieved must be astounding.

29.79 The argument that God exists because something had to design that which appears designed was shot down by Darwin.

No, Darwin described the process of evlolution, and explained why it happened, but the theory of evolution does not rule out God. Perhaps evolution could not have happened had God not set up the code in DNA to begin with, or had not allowed it to mutate in the way it does, or in the specific manner it does to offer some advantage to a species. God could have had a hand in the beginning, in the set up of the entire world, in the perfecting of the conditions, and in the transitionary periods-either effecting the enviromental conditions to cause a species to evolve in a specific way, or in effecting specifically the way the code was altered or mutated in each species.

30.83+ "Proofs" are not proof, they are tricks using logic but fully incomplete logic.

Can logic ever be said to engage in trickery? Anyway, I agree, the word "proof" does not guarantee proving what follows...

31.87 The argument that something is beautiful/awe inspiring, therefore god exists, is not self evident.

If we knew the nature of god, and that nature was beauty, then yes, it would be self evident that any beauty would be evidence of god. We don't know that creating and manifesting beauty-and therefore his glory-is not one of God's primary purposes. Scripture seems to support such a notion.

32.88 People tend to attribute experiences which seem foreign and are alarming to supernatural experiences.

Yes, but foreign and alarming experiences occur less and less in a world where science is familiarizing us with all that is around us. So, more and more experiences that appear to have supernatural origins are positive experiences. Once one has faith, one should be more open to the positive manifestations of God, and God is supposed to give these to the faithful more readily.

33.88+ It is nigh impossible to take a person seriously when they claim to have seen Jesus, heard God, etc, etc; because 1) we know that illusions/delusions/hallucinations/psychology exist. These are better explanations because our brains are simulation providing, model producing software. The brain is adept at constructing faces and voices.

If one is serious about investigating the truth, one will be serious of all alleged first hand experiences bolstering a claim. Somehow, despite all the craziness spewing forth from crazy minds, reality and truth are discerned from first hand experiences every single day. I'd dare say truth comes in far greater proportion from common everyday claims than does blatant lies or misperceptions. At any rate, there are all kinds of explanations for experiences, but that does not destroy the fact that some experiences point to real truth, and that such experiences should be taken seriously, especially when involving an inquiry into the existence of God.

34.97 The Gospels are ancient fiction

Ok, ancient fiction involving real people in real places where things that really happened are happening. Maybe I should double check the definition of "fiction". I suppose I could be wrong and Dawkins is right.

I know Dawkins is not claiming that most of the people and the setting of the Gospels is not true. He is claiming that there are some inconsistencies between the Gospels and that specific claims are fictional claims-like that Jesus was born of virgin birth, and that he was the Son of God come to redeem mankind for its sins. He is claiming that this and other aspects of the Gospel story are made-up lies. He points to the absurdity of ideas, inter-gospel inconsistencies, historical innacuracies, and miraculous/mystical claims as evidence to bolster his claim. I am no theologian or biblical scholar, but I'm sure there are reasonable explanations for all of these supposed faults. I've heard them mentioned before.
The question of the Bible's truth, like that of God's existence, can only be settled for an individual by their choosing to have faith or through evidence and reasoned argument. One must weigh the evidence and reason for the truth of the Bible against that against the truth of the Bible. I don't believe Dawkin's book The God Delusion provides us with the full scale-the totality of the evidence & reason for and against the Bible's complete truth. Its silly to suppose it does. Therefore, we cannot consider his claim here seriously.

35.94+ There is little evidence to support the notion that Jesus believed he was the Son of God.

Again, I am no Bible Scholoar, though I did go to a Christian church for the first 17 years of my life. I am unprepared to offer any evidence to counter Dawkin's claim other than by sharing my view that everything I ever read about the life of Jesus and his Disciples seemed to take as its primary basis that Jesus was the Son of God. Is Dawkins saying that others thought Jesus was the Savior and Jesus himself, while not really believing it himself, allowed his followers to believe it? This is a strange claim indeed.

36.94+ The Gospels contain many inconsistencies and factual problems that make them untrustworthy- It appears as though Mathew and John made up the facts of Jesus's birth to fall in line with prophecy (bethlehem vs ) Some gospels were ommitted perhaps because they were too embarrassing.

I do not know why some gospels were ommitted. I'm sure a theologian would say that what was ommitted were not divinely inspired text, and thus unworthy to be proclaimed a gospel. The alleged inconsistencies and factual problems should be scrutinized individually to test their veracity before they are allowed to weaken the broader claims of the Bible.

37.100 "among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as those in literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiosity, as compared to the population they come from.

Of course; I'm sure there's a remarkable degree of irMormonism among Muslims. I'm also sure there's a high degree of irphilosophy among shop teachers. My point is, if one fills one's head with one kind of knowledge and one kind of thinking, it is highly unlikely that one will have time and space to fill their lives with another kind. Those who do not seek out Jesus in their day to day lives, and instead fill their hearts and minds with the particulars of reality, will have their vision to clouded to see or feel the essence of that reality--that essence being the love of God.

38. 103 Study: the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind.

The implication here is that more intelligent and more educated people are more skilled at determining that religious belief is a farse. I'd agree, but first one must assume that a highly educated person had the wisdom to give careful consideration to both arguments for and against God's existence. Many do not have that wisdom. Instead, I'd guess that many educated people became irreligious because it simply was expected of them--that their pride led them to think they were "above" belief--that somewhere along the line, being a believer in academia became embarrasing or uncouth, and that peer pressure subtly worked to throw off belief systems. Also, there is the claim that institutes of higher learning indoctrinate attendees to secular humanist beliefs.

39. 104 Feigning belif in order to avoid damnation is odd becaause why would God care for feigned belief? And why would a god care that people "believe in him" anyway? It is Unreasonable.

It is unreasonable to think that everything a God does or says should be an open book, reasonably speaking. An omnipotent, omniscient God that behaves strictly in line with his creations unknowing, childlike reason, would be a boring, powerless God indeed.

40.113 The argument from improbability comes close to proving that God does not exist.

But if this is true, it does not prove that God Does not exist. The Universe of the Unknown may be infinitely expansive. In light of this, to make claims of low probability is an intellectually reckless endeavor.

One could say the same thing if one was a caveman looking at a television set. He would say that the probability that there is not a man inside the box is so low, that one could really just say that he is in the box. Of course, that is no argument. Without the slightest clue of television signals, video cameras, electricity, actors, etc, the caveman is 100% unqualified to make any assessments about the probability of there being another explanation for the man in the box.
My argument is dependent upon the claim that there are is still a vast Universe of the Unknown, and that we are yet unqualified to assess the probability of the existence of a supreme intelligence.

41.113 The creationists argument that the odds against assembling a fully functional horse, beetle, or ostrich by randomly shuffling its parts are up there with the odds that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747-this argument could only be made by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection-somebody who thinks that natural selection is a theory of chance whereas it is the opposite.

Natural selection is a theory of existence, of being, of survival. Because a lifeform survives today, it could not possibly be the way it was before, say, an asteroid plummeted into the planet and altered the lifeforms environment so severly that the lifeform would have completely died off had it not adapted genetically its new, harsh environment. I have not studied evolution thoroughly, but I might suppose it is dependent upon active and drastic genetic mutations throughout all lifeforms. How these mutations happen in such quantity as to produce such diversity is something I do not understand. How these mutations happen at the level of DNA-what the chemical process is-I do not understand. How these small mutations at the microscopic level alter the larger traits of a species, I still do not understand. I suppose that for every successfull adaptation, there had to have been millions of wasteful mutations. The odds that a beneficial adaptations exists in a population when a survival crunch helps kill off the status quo seem quite high. I suppose a survival crunch does not have to occur for a superior trait to succeed an old trait. And do old traits dissapear or do they just burry themselves in the DNA of future generations? This line of thinking is very interesting, but back to the project...

I see little support for challenging the Dawkin's claim that evolution is the opposite of a theory of chance.

42.114 the God Hypothesis tries to get something for nothing-not Darwinianism.

Yes, as an explanation for the complexity of life, and to a degree, it does.

43.114 Design is an illusion

Design is not an illusion. Human's have designed a plethora of things. Modern design is a manifestation of an intelligence that is aware of itself and has taken up motives beyond mere survival.

44.119 No, chance is not the designer of complex organisms. More complex and improbable, less chance has to do with it.

Chance, in the sense that a result was not the purpose of a superior being, could describe evolution. Evolution could be thought of as design if one takes the implied being out of the word design. Evolution could be confused with both chance and design, such is the enigmas of language. Rather, evolution is a process free from any implication of a being-absent or involved.

45.120 Natural selection is not only a parsimonious, plausible, and elegant solution, it is the only workable alternative to chance that has ever been suggested.

This is a positive claim, but not necessarily true. According to someone I know, there is a lot of science out there that is inconsistent with evolution. Thus, whether it is an elagant or workable solution is up for debate (atleast with my limited knowledge).

46.120 Intelligent design is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability

As I've indicated before, I don't think much of this riddle of statistical improbabiity. There are some logical problems with it.

47. 120 The idea of God aggravates the vicious regress with a vengeance.

In other words, the idea that God brought our universe into being with an initial design still demands an explanation for how God came about, and that explanation would necessarily involve evolution-God evolved-, since evolution is the only workable explanation we have for how life becomes more complex.

There is a part of the book where Dawkins advances different hypothesis for how the universe might have evolved in a similar way to life forms evolution--and the idea of multiple universes, multiple generations of universes is advanced. This idea only makes the idea of a God seem more likely as it would provide the explanation for how a God could evolve. Further, absent an explanation for the Big Bang, scientists do not undermine the argument for design. And absent an explanation for how replicating life began on this planet, and how specific mutations happen at the microscopic level, the theory of evolution does little to explain away design.

48.121 To say that everyting which is exceedingly complex had to have had a designer is faulty logic.

No, it is an axiom that is either true or false entirely. Its validity hangs on the truth of the premise that God exists and designed everything-both simple and complex.

49.122 Design creates a bigger problem that it solves: who designed the designer?

If such a question is considered logical, one is implying that there was a beginning for everything. In a world of scientists who believe in the Big Bang and believers, it seems that the consensus is that there is a beginning to everything.

Is the question "who" designed the human who designed a computer program that BIG of a problem? I don't think so.

50.122 The creationist doesn't understand the power of accumulation

Some may not--most probably don't. Still, the evolutionist doesn't understand the power of accumulation when it comes to its power to produce greater and greater designers through a natural process of univeral/natural selection--I know the hypothesis is pretty "out there". At some point, the God's specific design advances beyond his reach--this is the point when intelligence great enough to become aware of itself and to design for itself and to move in revolutionary ways towards its own agendas/ideas comes into existance. The God gave birth to "his children" through a slow "in vitro" development called natural history and natural selection.

51 122 It is wrong to say there are no useful intermediates (part wing, web, etc) Such intermediates abound in practice.

I agree. However, whether those intermediates, and the genetic alterations that caused them, where somehow designed or planned as a step in the overall plan, is arguable.

52. 123 forests are replete with gliding or parachuting animals illustrating in practice intermediates.

Yes. However, one cannot say with certainty whether the creature seen gliding across the forest canopy will evolve in the direction we'd assume it evolve. Perhaps some other trait will become more advantageous, and the part-wing will be buried in its DNA for an indefinite period.

53.123 Eyes and wings are certainly not irreducibly complex

This seems true given the vast array of "eyes" that exist in the natural world. A thought: I wonder if the eye is a telling indicator for where a species originated in the timeline of species... The similarity and complexity of an eye might be telling...

54.125 If God existed, he would have to be very very complex, and presumably irreducibly so.

Yes, if God existed, and he was as many believers invision, an omniscient, omnipotent being, then he would have to be very very complex (or atleast one would think, given our limited understanding of the physics and psychic phenomenon.

55.126 "One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that its a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding."

What if attempting to understand something we will never be able to understand meant that the spiritual side of us, the side which is the only avenue for connecting with God, was smothered or withered away by the dominance of the reasoning part of us. Then, one could honestly say that not understanding is a virtue. Having faith and connecting with God would be a virtue.

I know, anyone can create an "What if" situation to argue a point. Some "What if"s are ridiculous, some aren't. I don't believe the one I constructed is, because I'm rather confident that human's are not able to understand and know everything there is to know/experience in this universe. This Superunknown could possess a great intelligence, or it could have all began at the behest of a great intelligence. As a believer once claimed, there are other ways to "know" truth. Maybe this is a different kind of truth to the one the reasoning mind determines, I don't know, but the Superunknown likely has room for this other kind of knowing or truth. At any rate, this is all too vague and completely hypothetical, thus not that useful.

56.126 The Creationists ploy to fill scientific gaps with God undermines scientists natural-indeed necessary-rejoicing in temporary uncertainty.

Yes, I agree, but scientists also rejoice in revealing their observations, and do little to translate those observation and to give their observations any context or profundity. More open minded Creationists are trying to tie scientific observation/fact into a theory that includes the relationship of man to God, etc...

57.128 No such anachronistic fossils have ever been authentically found (despite legends of human skulls in coal measures and human footprints interspersed with dinasaurs)

I'll have to look into this. I've always had the feeling that many of the geological features I observe could have been formed in a short, violent period of tectonic/volcanic activity, and that those features could have been significantly eroded in the span of 1000 years or so. But here I'm really talking "out my ass" so-to-speak, since I am no geologist.

58.136 The Anthropic Principle, like Natural Selection, is an alternative to the design hypothesis. It is an alternative explanation (by demonstrating a simple fact that a Goldilock zone and life supporting worlds do and can exist in rare instances) to God.

The Anthropic Principle is rather dumb if all it does is demonstrate that life exists here on Earth, whereas life could not exist in the vast majority of places in the solar system/galaxy/universe. Scientists hypothesis that other solar systems could have Goldilock zones as well... I just don't see how a simple observation is supposed to be an "alternative to design". So a planet could form in a Goldilock zone...well, duh, one did-Earth. You can't say that since a planet can form in a Goldilock zone, God had nothing to do with it. I suppose the power of the statement is in the implication that it could be done naturally, without God, in which case the argument about the existence of God is still standing as it did before. Either something came into being without God, or it came into being at God's behest.

59. 137 The spontaneous arising by chance of the first hereditary molecule is maybe very very improbable.

By "maybe very very improbably" Dawkins means "very very improbable". Still, it doesn't matter, because either it happened or it did not. If it actually happened "spontaneously" from a primordeal stew it is 100% probable. If not, if God designed and created the first hereditary molecule, then the question remains whether it could have been done spontaneously--but the answer would probably be, no.

This concession by Dawkins is extraordinarily profound, but it is certainly not a fatal one to his argument.

60. 141 Natural Selection needs some luck to get started.

The positive word "luck" implies something positive happened for somebody thanks to a random coming together of ideal conditions. So, it is us that had the luck, the positive thing happen, for conditions came together in just the right way to allow for the formation of replicating molecules and 4 billion years later, the human species. The question remains whether the conditions allowed a God to plant the seed, or coalesced in the "spontaneous" creation of life. These are not the only hypothesis on the table. The seed could have been planted by some alien source, either intelligent or random.

61.144 The theists response to the riddle of improbability is an evasion of staggering proportions

It may be for some. However, I've yet to accept that there is a "riddle of improbability".

62.156 If our universe was designed, the designer himself must be an end product of some kind of cumulative escalator or crane, perhaps a version of Darwinism in another universe.

Thanks for the hypothesis...it is not a bad one, and one some believers would have little problem with. Theologians, however, might.

63. 157 " One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been how the complex improbable appearane of design in the universe arises."

I think it has been a challenge because humans have had a hard time taking themselves out of their view of the universe. Since human's design, and humans are surrounded by humans, we imagine a human-like creator, and we everything we see is deconstructed in our minds as a whole made of smaller parts, put together in a specific way, this somehow denoting a being like us, since we put together smaller things to create larger, whole things...

64. 157 "The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, or a spider or a person."

Yes it is.

65.157 "The temptation is a false one, because the sesigner hypothesis immediately raises the problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obvioiusly no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a 'crane', not a 'skyhook', for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbably complexity."

I still have a problem with this probability approach. If something is highly improbably, why not expect the solution to be a highly improbably, complex one? I don't believe it is a universal axiom that all complex things must be explainable in such a way as a 4th grader can understand. Overall though, I have little problem with Dawkins' logic here.

66.157 "The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design have evolved by slow, gradual degree from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that-an illusion.

Evolution is dependent upon malleable, changeable genes. There must be a close connection between the environment and genes.... There is not an infinite variety of genes in every single creature, is there? That would be the only way physiological adaptation could occur without having to morph the genes first-less superior genes would turn off or die off. I'll have to study genetics/evolution in greater depth, clearly.

Darwinian evolution may be the most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered, but it is still early in science's life of discovery. Evolution is the first and only explanation right now, but perhaps not the last.

67.157 "We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying that the biological version of Darwinism, becasue it has heavier demands on luck. But the antropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human inuition is comfortable with.

The anthropic principle is logically flawed (I challenge...and I think?)

68.158 "We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match the biological one, the relative weak cranes we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self evidently better that the self defeating skyhook hypothesis of an intelligent designer.

Hrm, must I admit this...I'm supposed to be arguing against Dawkins here. I suppose all one can say is that of course we cannot understand God and of course his ways appear to us as using a skyhook. The evidence is in the problems with evolution to explain those things which are irreducably complex--that could not exist in simpler form, whatever those things are.... (I'd better read a book on design).

69.164 Religion is likely explainable in Darwinian terms.

Of course, but it wouldn't prove it is correct.

70.191 "...because Darwinian Natural Selection abhors waste, any ubiquitous features of a species-such as religion-must have conferred some advantage or it wouldn't have survived."

There are many features of a species which are not necessary for survival-we call these features in aggregate, "culture". At the individual level, "personality". These features are evidence of God's personality.... Ok, its a weak argument.

One might say that religion almost always is disadvantageous to survival because instead of providing for oneself and one's family, a believer will engage in wasteful behavior that has nothing to do with survival. Why religion still exists in abundance is a problem that cannot be explained by Darwinian Natural Selection. Rather, one might chalk it up to God's lasting presence and influence.... A better argument. (or explain it as a byproduct of the mind)

71.207 Morality is best seen as a by-product of something else-we should ask what is the Darwinian survival value of religion?

Yes, I can see how a relgion can have survival value if it indoctrinates a morality of obedience, discipline, fellowship, fair dealings, love, etc--all the forces that work against chaos and violence. As an aside I'd like to present a big IF. IF humans naturally have a very difficult time behaving themselves and not causing chaos/violence/death, then religion does provide a very important service. I am sure it has served this purpose of "civilizing" man's natural animalistic instincts and degenerative nature. However, with the invention of the state, the spread of information and understanding among nations, and the greater respect and influence allowed women (who provide a loving balance to man's destructive tendencies), one can postulate that mysticism is no longer necessary to tame us.

[skipping chapters 5 & 6; The Roots of Religion and The Roots of Morality]

72. 237 Direct commandment as well as intruction through God's example encourage a system of morals which any civilized modern person, whether religious or not, would find obnoxious.

Perhaps this is true if one were to take the Old Testament literally. It is not true if one were to take the New Testament literally. Anyway, a system of morals, from God's perspective, is simply to get people to do what he wants them to do--whether or not those things are offend our sensibilities is not the issue. God knows all, God knows better, so we trust in God and do as he commands.

73. 237 Much of the Bible is "just plain weird".

I completely subjective statement. Obviously it is not weird enough to deter billions of people over the last 2000 years to take it very seriously.

74.237 "those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it."

Or perhaps they had it translated and fed to them by a preacher, who they trust understands it better than they. It is natural for us to turn to the "authority" of a subject when we hope to understand that subject best.

75.237 [examples of mercilessness, inhuman brutality, child murder, genocide, rape, slavery, etc]

God had to act more forcefully, bluntly in the early stages of civilization in order to insure human's were heading in the direction he had planned. Hypothesis.

76.250 Jesus explicitly departed from the ethics of the old scripture.

Therefore, God can change....so? Jesus was prophecied, and according to Christians, he has done what he was prophecied to do, other than come back...

77.250 Jesus did not have strong "family values".

It is difficult to have strong family ties/values when one sees everyone as children of God, and when one is traveling, preaching the Gospel, and when one's father is God himself---in the latter case, he had very very strong family values.

78.251 "...There are other teachings in the New Testament that no good person should support." ex: the atonement for original sin.

Because this places a burden on innocent people? Perhaps God sees things more clearly. He sees the bigger picture. Sin, God found, is inherent in human nature, and that Adam's ability to sin against him is an ability we all possess. This is something God feels needs to be atoned for. At any rate, the nature of our spirits is God's business. He created them, he knew them before birth, he'll decide the fate of them. It is his business to help us to perfect them.

79.251 "What kind of ethical philospohy is it that condemns every child, even before it is born, to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor?"

God's. Perhaps the destruction of a person/thing/spirit is not an enormous tragedy to God as it is to us. Consider that God plans on sharing his glory with those chosen worthy, and consider that his glory is unfathonably great. Then ask whether he is not doing good...

80.252 God is sadomasochistic, incarnating himself so that he should be tortured and executed in atonement for the hereditary sin of Adam.

There is meaning to all this that transcends a simple statement designed to rob the meaning of it profundity/glory.

81.252 If Jesus wanted to be betrayed and then murdered, in order that he could redeem us all, isn't it rather unfair of those who consider themselves redeemed to take it out on Judas and the Jews down the ages?

Not if you believe in free will and responsibility for one's actions. While God knew these people would betray him, he did not make them do so...if that makes any sense at all, which it doesn't. But, free will is a complicated matter best left to theologians to sort out.

82.253 ...The central doctrine of Christianity-atonement-is viscious; sado-masochistic and repellent; barking made, and viciously unpleasant.

No, it is glorious. It saves sinners. It gives people hope. Also I'd say it further secures order/civilization by giving to sinners/criminals as many chances to become good as they need.

83.255 While most religious people don't derive their morals from the literal interpretation of the scriptures, it is scary to think that children are taught moral lessons from the bible, in which God's immoral directives pass as the 'right' decision.

This instills in children the importance of relying on parents and authority figures for ultimate decisions on what is right and wrong, even if it doesn't seem to the children to be fair. Obedience is necessary for survival, manners, social development, etc; and the bible promotes it.

84.260 Religion amplifies and exacerbates the damage of natural in-group loyalties and out-group hostilities by 1) labelling children, 2) segregating schools, and 3) perpetuating/enforing taboos against 'marrying out'.

Maybe, but whether violence comes from these divisions is dependent upon what religions teach, and further relations between groups. Group identity has always been and will likely continue indefinately, therefore, it is unfair to pick on religion as something that amplifies and exacerbates the damage of...

85.262 There is a consensus about what we do as a matter of fact consider right and wrong.

I'll wait until I read the results of surveys before commenting.

86.282 For believers, the truth of the Holy Book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning.

Yes, for many believers it is, while many believers have used reason to arrive at their belief.

87.282 Believers tend to ignore/throw out evidence that refutes the truth of the Holy Book.

This allegation could be made about anyone who takes a strong position about anything.

88.282 The correct way to believe is upon studying the evidence.

As a rule, perhaps. But what if the evidence fails us? In other words,what if the urgency and importance to believe demanded conclusions and decisions to be made by us absent reliable, full, relevant evidence ? Is there another "correct" way to beleive?

Action can be taken based on a proper assessment of the risks. Before catching a flight, a person cannot claim to know whether the plane will have a mechanical issue that endangers his life. There is absolutely no evidence available to the person that will guarantee that the worst case scenario will not occur. Still, the person proceeds with confidence, knowing that flight disasters are highly unlikely.

Can this sort of reasoning be applied to belief? Is it highly unlikely that there is no god? Is it highly likely that there is a God? Based on data, how many times has God been verified (just like data tells us how many times a plane crashes)? Zero times, I think. (If you haven't noticed, I'm simply thinking things through here) Has God been seen or verified as many times as people make it to their destination in one piece? Of course not.

I suppose the problem begins with defining and identifying God in our world/universe. How can we present odds for gods existence if we're aren't sure what to look for -what data to base our prediction on? This problem will have to be solved before we use prediction/probability for justifying our belief.

I honestly don't know how one can beleive something that cannot be demonstrated, or is undemonstrateable, or cannot be corraborated with relevant evidence. I cannot argue against Dawkins here.

89.282 If science is wrong it is corrected promply when the discovery is made. This is not done with the Bible.

This is true.

90.282 The accusation that a scientist's belief in evidence is itself a matter of fundamentalist faith is a distortion, a refusal to recognize that there are determined truths out there that are accepted-like the truth that New Zealand exists.

Belief in observation is a matter of faith, or so the challenge goes. But is this not the antithesis of faith-belief or truth established through evidence/observation? The implication is that what we sense is no more real or proveable than what faith causes one to believe. That which can be felt or sensed absent our major senses is just as real as that which we can touch, feel, see, hear, taste, or reason logically. This charge seems ludicrous, of course, but I must try to discover what is reasonable about it if I am to argue for it. I can't seem to do that as this moment.

91.283 No real fundamentalist would abandon a belief overnight if evidence arose to disprove their belief.

If that is the definition of "fundamentalist" Dawkins wants to put forth-someone who is rigid in their beliefs, resistant to change, then of course this is true. I don't know if the definition is absolute and correct. It is more of a generalization and accusation that skirts absolute truth. Still, the notion that a fundamentalist would not abondon his belief in the face of new evidence is probably true in most cases. Whether a scientist would be less rigid will vary case to case.

92.283 Belief in something is not fundamentalism if one knows what it would take to change one's own mind about it--that being necessary evidence.

It is difficult for a believer to declare what evidence would change her mind if a believer doesn't use evidence to justify her belief.

93.294 An absolutist, religious mind cannot see the moral difference between killing a microscopic cluster of cells and killing a full-grown doctor on the other.

That is untrue. An absolutist, religious mind, if for some reason had to make a choice between keeping alive a microscopic cluster of cells or a full grown doctor might choose the cluster or he might choose the doctor based on various considerations. In particular, is the doctor trying to kill the cluster of cells, which to the believer is a developing person with all the value of a person? In that case, the doctor is committing a crime/sin, and it should be he that should be killed. The developing person is doing nothing wrong.

All value judgements are ultimately absolute when considered deeply enough, though Dawkins won't admit it.

94.301 The absolutist moral discrimination is devastatingly undermined by the fact of evolution-evolutionary continuity shows that there is no absolute distinction (human suffering vs animal suffering).

If a believer actually conceeded that humans evolved from monkeys, it does not effect the absolute that God considers it a sin to kill humans, and encourages killing animals for our own survival. A believer can admit that cruelty to animals is a terrible thing without undermining her belief in God.

95. 302 Religion enslaves women and causes them to suffer (part Islam).

There are hundreds of millions of women who would argue against this point. So religion prevents women from doing what it is they want to do? While this may be true for some women, it can't be claimed that most female believers resent their belief and the role which it commands of them.

Religion causes women to suffer, huh? Isn't suffering caused by a lack of religion as well? What does religion have to do with suffering? It secures women's safety, relationships, and lifestyle by promoting marriage and harmony in the home.

I imagine extravegant cases could be made for both sides of this argument.

96.302 Religion causes powerful policy-makers to enforce their biblical belief that Israel has a god-given right to the land of Israel.

This is true, and I'm sure many do not see this as a bad thing.

97.302 Religion causes some Christians to yearn for Armageddon-nuclear holocaust.

While this may be true concerning some Christians, I'm sure it is not true for the vast majority of them. No one looks forward to suffering and death--it is just accepted as a part of God's plan, just as Athiests accept suffering and death as part of life.

98.303 Terrorism wouldn't exist without religion.

What about the mafia? What about ideological struggles (community vs. individual freedom, etc)

99.303 "Only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people."

I don't know if any special kind of experience or belief is needed to motivate utter madness in otherwise sane and descent people. I suspect it would happen without religion.

100.303 Simply calling Bind Laden "evil" is to evade our responsibility to give a proper answer to the question of why anyone would want to destroy the World Trade Center.

If we want to prevent terrorist attacks, it certainly helps to understand why terrorists do what they do. I agree. The fault though is not in calling Bin Laden evil, but in not taking the next step and figuring out what led him to commit the evil crime.

101.304 People can do terrible things because they have been raised from the cradle to have total and unquestioning faith.

This is one reason people can do terrible things. Indoctrination of any sort could be to blame. Still, something more is needed--and that is an aspect of culture or faith that justifies violence. Not all beliefs do so. An infusion of conditions and ideas that lead one to violence could happen to any belief system, I suppose, and they can exist absent any belief system, I suppose further. Jealousy, revenge, hatred, rivalry--these can enter any community, any system of beliefs, and make them sinister. It is wrong to blame the belief.

102.308 "Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument. Teachingn children that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them-given certain other ingredients that are not hard to come by -to grow up inoto potentially lethal weapons for future jihads or crusades."

The presence of justification or arguments in no way guarantees or greatly diminishes the use of violence in conflict. Reason can be found propping up and driving both sides of nearly all conflicts. I suppose it is faith one has in his or her reasons, as well as his or her beliefs, that allow conflicts to rage on. What is needed, apparantly, is the humility and understanding to accept that one may be wrong--this is the key that opens the door to greater truth, and perhaps the end of conflict.

103.315 "Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong...a violation of childhood."

Yes, faith, if seen as a barrier to greater understanding and truth, and a point of division/contention among persons, can be dangerous.

104.317 As horrible as sexual abuse is, the damage is arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.

I understand the comparison is only useful for forcing a point: That being raised religious (Catholic, in this case) causes psychological trauma. This is an absurd point primarily because religious belief will not violate one's trust in a sudden, horrific way, as is the case with physical abuse. The damage of sexual abuse, as far as I understand, is in dramatically altering an individuals ability to trust another person in all intimate ways, as well as skewing a child's natural sexual development so terribly as to have life long negative impacts. Religion does little more than instill mild underlying fear and guilt, which, while not necessarily a positive thing, is something that cannot be said to be completely unnatural. I'd guess that without religion, fear of the unknown and fear of death would still be a large presence in children's psyche. And its hard to believe that a properly raised child would not be capable of feeling guilt whenever he did something wrong.

105.318 Scaring children about hell is child abuse.

Most would agree. But I suspect most would not agree that the tact which most churches and religions take when they teach children about hell is not so severe as to qualify that teaching as child abuse. So, the significance of this point, when considering the actual sunday school lessons regarding hell, is greatly diminished, and does little to discredit religion.

106.327 Children should be taught not what to think but how.

The two cannot be seperated entirely, atleast as long as there exists the truths of the manner Dawkins is a fan of-scientific truth.

107. 335 (implied) The scriptures do not provide a literal account of geological history.

That is not their purpose.

108.337 "How could any decent person think it right to labe four year old childeren with cosmic and theological opinions of their parents?"

Implied: A decent person would not. Yet, would a decent person never impart upon their children conviction of any sort? I'm not sure, but it I get the feeling that the pride children feel as a result of being allied with the beliefs of their parents could be beneficial, as it ingrains in them a confidence in knowing what is right and wrong, even though the particulars may be skewed by dogma and mysticism. The insecurity of childhood could be particularly oppressive absent convictions of some sort. With a proper education, one would hope that ultimately, a child would find time to question serioulsy the beliefs of his parents. This, of course, is probably wishful thinking. Then the question is, which is more damaging, growing into a committed dogmatist or developing no spirituality-no conviction, just a shallow, materialist who never creates a greater purpose for herself in life? The answer to what is most likely to happen to a child's character absent childhood conviction-good or bad-is not easily discoverable. As is usually the case, we become dependent upon empirical data...

109.339 The idea that is normal and right to indoctrinate tiny children in the religion of their parents, and slap religious labels on them is a preposterous idea.

Dawkins acts as though parents have an easy choice--people do not simply choose to pass on their culture and tradition to their children. They do it because that is who they are--it would be against nature to play a non-believer for the sake of the child.

I suppose if the concept of "indoctrination" was widely understood and accepted as a phenomenon that was to be resisted generally, then perhaps society could abolish organizations designed specifically to teach religious dogma... I do not think you can tell parents that they have no right to send their children off to a school for the express purpose of impressing upon the children what is right and wrong.

Dawkins statement is heavily dependent upon the implication that there is something very wrong and preposterous with religion. No one would call it preposterous to indoctrinate children to foster beliefs in what is good and what is bad. Dawkins has a big problem with religion and social grouping of traditional means. Yes, it goes beyond his disdain for religion-it involves a disdain for indoctrination-bot are abhorrent to Dawkins. Still, I refuse to believe that a clear line can be drawn here. For Dawkins, indoctrination is more preposterous the more it takes advantage of younger and younger children, and it is especially so when it ventures into specific dogma, beyond universal conceptions of what is right and wrong. I understand and agree with this.

Believers will argue that religion is not as bad as that, that it is not that devisive, that the benefits of conviction for young children are great, that religion does not rule out openmindedness and further consideration, etc. In short, a believer will claim that teaching his children the beliefs, morality, and dogma of his religion is by and large good for the child, good for society, and not akin to "programming" his child's mind to think one thing, one way, her entire life.

110.352 Religious power to console doesn't make it true.

No, but it might make it good enough to keep. Whatever we choose to do to enjoy ourselves or make ourselves feel better is not dependent upon whether it is true.

111.353 One can lead a happy, fulfilled life without supernatural religion.

I'm sure that's true. But it may be tainted with deeper depression and not bolstered by a richer joy.

112.360 There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point.

Individuality itself is suspect. It is not infantile if it is human nature. Dawkins himself may be proud of the fact that he chose his direction in life and came to his own beliefs, but it is not the complete truth. Dawkins, like everyone, is a product of his genetic makeup and environment. It is noble of him to recognize this and never rest in his search for truth, I think; and by this I agree that simply accepting the claims of one person, or one religion as the truth, in order to give your life meaning and purpose is rather infantile. Still, is it not possible that a person or religion may know better than us, and putting our faith in that is a wise move?

113.371 What we see of the real world is not the unvarnished real world, but a model of the real world, regulated and adjusted by sense data-a model that is constructed so that it is useful for dealing with the real world.

I think our minds senses are especially adept at bringing to our awareness the real world, as unvarnished as possible. Of course we cannot conceive of the world from all angles, all light, all possible knowledge which can be obtained. We see all we need to see to survive, I think. Of course it might help if we saw/sense more, but I don't think it is neccessary-we see enough. I have little doubt that we see the real world, unvarnished, only its a small picture.