Douglas Adams reads a section from one of his Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy books.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
This is an excellent reminder of the fact that Richard and Douglas were close friends. The God Delusion is actually dedicated to the memory of Douglas Adams.
Whilst differing greatly in content and tone, the writings of these two, if made universally available, would undoubtably raise humankind’s aggregate IQ by a not insignificant amount.
Strewth.
#3 – Lauren the Ghoti,
Possibly. It’s a little tough to tell. One just might need to be in the correct mindset for proper appreciation already. Perhaps for Dawkins it would help to start with some of his or Gould’s books on evolution and maybe some general physics before diving into something as controversial as The God Delusion. It helps to have an understanding of what science actually is before getting into how it makes the concept of a personal deity both irrelevant and harmful.
#4 I think you have to pick Dawkin or Gould as they disagree on some fundamental issues. Having read both I favour(favor) Dawkin’s world view. There is even a book written about their differing views “Dawkins vs. Gould : Survival of the Fittest “.
Just proving the closer you look at something the bigger and more complicated it becomes.
REAd the BOOKS, forget the movie…
From the Scripture Mr. Dawkins reads God gives meaning to human existence. To care for each other and the Earth. By trying to refute this is Dawkins saying that there is no meaning to life? That 42 is just as legitimate an answer as any other? That there is no meaning to life?
Also, quoting fiction to try and prove the Bible as fiction seems a little questionable to me in the logic department. Wouldn’t quoting a factual book to prove the “fiction” of the Bible be more logical?
/ intellectual argument from a “religious nut”
The story about the young girl and her interpretation of the reason for flowers point out how difficult for someone from the non earth religions to be an “envirenmentalist”. The belief that god created earth for the benefit and control of man means anything we do is ok because earth is ours to take advantage of. People who oppose are heretics.
John S
One of my favorite Adam’s bits
(No I don’t believe in ID and I think neither did he)
“The Babel fish,” said The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy quietly, “is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
“The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’
“`But,’ says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.’
“`Oh dear,’ says God, `I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
I did read The God Delusion and the only conclusion that a rational person can glean from it is that Dawkins is a person filled with hate. He presents no logical arguments against a creator. In fact if a religious person had written such a book it would be classified as hate speech.
#6 – Johnny Canuck
“I think you have to pick Dawkin or Gould as they disagree on some fundamental issues. Having read both I favour(favor) Dawkin’s world view. There is even a book written about their differing views “Dawkins vs. Gould : Survival of the Fittest “.”
You beat me to it; I was just fixin’ to mention to M Scott that I’m with him, except for the mention of Gould. A great scientist inside the confines of his specialty, when he spepped away from it, the Marxist idelogy kicked in and he could be a surprisingly dishonest hack. Will supply a few refs later, if you like…
#10 – Ben Waymark
“…
He then goes on to mock pretty much all religions….”
Well, if you were paying close attention to the greater overall theme at the root of all of his words on the topic, you will’ve noticed that he takes great pains to demonstrate that, despite the differences great and small between all the hundreds of various schools of religioous belief, they all have the same factor in common, which is what makes them religions, and therefore makes them invalid; not one of them has, as I have put it before, one single fragment of a subatomic particle of evidence to lend it any credence whatsoever.
IOW: they are the same, no matter how they differ – none has the first bit of evidence to support it, and none ever has. And that tells anyone who grasps even the most primitive concept of probability that the likelihood of any of them being correct is so astronomically improbable as to not be worth consideration by any sane person. And when the inconceivably vast volumes of evidence against them is added to the mix, it is the safest bet in the Universe that religion is what reason shows it to be: a construct of man’s own primitive creation, nothing more.
Eckancar, Mormonism, Zoroastrianism, Scientology, Catholocism, Judaism, Christian Science, Buddhism – they appear to be quite different; some crackpot, some quite sensible, some incredibly dull, some quite fascinating, some dimwitted and some highly intellectually refined – but they are really all the same, just irrational products of imperfect human minds. And that’s the only evidence that exists for any of them.
I dont know if I’d lump Buddhism in there. It doesnt demand a specific faith, nor subservience or belief in any deity.
Really more of a philosophy than a religion.
I dont know if I’d lump Buddhism in there with the others.
It doesnt require a partucular faith, nor subservience or belief in any deity.
Its really more of a philosphy than a religion.
With all the book recommendations floating around this thread may I suggest The Case for Christ By Lee Strobel, a former atheist who sets out to disprove the Bible to his wife and ends up finding a a LOT of evidence that proves the Bible true..
@13 – I’d echo 15, there is in fact, reasonable, logical arguments for the validity of Christianity.
@9 I am a Christian, and always interpreted humanity’s dominion over the earth more as a stewardship than an empire. To make an automotive analogy, we’re just leasing the place, and should return it with a minimum of wear and tear.
#16 – Don’t just say there are… enumerate them.
#6 – Johnny Canuck, & #13 – Lauren the Ghoti,
Gould and Dawkins disagree on whether religion and science can coexist. They do not disagree on any significant point of evolution of which I am aware. I have read both extensively but have not read the particular book about them that you read.
I was suggesting that Gould would be a good introduction to some real science for someone who doesn’t want his/her religion challenged. After they understand what science is, they could perhaps understand the arguments about both the uselessness and actual harmfulness of religion.
#16 – Jim W.,
I have already read one incredibly silly book on apologetics. I returned it to its owner with large post-it notes stuck in nearly every page. I think I didn’t leave a single point unanswered. I find it interesting that there is this whole sub-culture of alleged scientists and skeptics that suddenly find religion based on some supposed scientific evidence. Personally, I pointed out at a number of different points that Ralph Muncaster, the author of the book that was called something like A Skeptics Search for God, was never anything like a skeptic. He took so much stuff at face value without ever researching any of it then we heard a smattering of ridiculous contradictory information, found god. Do you think your book is any different?
Does it:
* point out that science hasn’t answered absolutely everything?
* make statistical claims of improbability based on wild calculations?
* discuss the physical constants of our universe?
* point out all of the “predictions” of the old testament that came true?
* point out that the Jesus story seems to match the predictions of the OT?
* ignore the fact that the most recent prediction of the OT was in a time frame that predates the earliest known copy of the OT?
* ignore the fact that statistical and legal proofs are not science, which is held to a far higher standard?
* ignore the fact that Jesus was well learned in the OT and would have easily been able to make the predicted statements from memory?
* ignore the historical (not as strong as scientific) evidence that Jesus may never have even actually existed and instead been an allegory?
* ignore the fact that creationism completely and utterly fails to explain anything because in order to explain complexity it first postulates the pre-existence of even greater complexity?
#14 – tcc3
“I dont know if I’d lump Buddhism in there with the others.
It doesnt require a particular faith, nor subservience or belief in any deity.
Its really more of a philosphy than a religion.”
Yeah, I’ll agree that that’s arguable, to a point – but Buddhism does entail belief in sacred things and in entities existing outside of nature and the laws governing it.
And simply put, for the purposes of the discussion of the clash of science and beliefs antithetical to science, because of it’s inclusion of supernatural phenomena, Buddhism qualifies as religion.
Did you know your robot can hum like Pink Floyd?
J/P=?
#19
“* ignore the fact that statistical and legal proofs are not science, which is held to a far higher standard?”
If we follow you forays into the global warming discussions around here, that higher standard most generally boils down to: the theory with the most agreement by others is the correct one; even though throughout human history, consensus has hardly guaranteed truth.
“* ignore the fact that creationism completely and utterly fails to explain anything because in order to explain complexity it first postulates the pre-existence of even greater complexity?”
Of the many arguments against biblical creationism, this hardly seems to be one of much consequence as we, ourselves, are examples of greater complexity being able to create things of lesser complexity. As for me, I’m actually hoping this little universe of ours is just the class project of some extra-dimensional high-school kids.
Nice to hear Adams reading of his own work — from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe IIRC. The animal in question was portrayed by Peter Davidson (AKA The Doctor #5) in the BBC TV series. The more recent movie was a total travesty.
#10 (and oodles of others): The “not a shred of evidence” line that is Dawkins’ mantra wears me out. I think a clearer statement would be to say that there is no scientific evidence of a standard the individual finds acceptable. Despite many efforts on both sides to argue Christianity scientifically, the reality of that faith lies in whether one accepts the testimony of the people who witnessed Jesus firsthand. The fact that one was not present to witness something does not preclude the possibility that something happened. Neither does the fact that something cannot be reproduced prove that it did not happen. At the same time, someone else stating that something happened does not make it so. Dawkins has made his examination of the world around him and religious histories and finds the evidence unconvincing. That does not mean there’s no evidence to consider as he so often protests.
#23 – the reality of that faith lies in whether one accepts the testimony of the people who witnessed Jesus firsthand
No one has witnessed this Jesus first hand. No one. No you haven’t.
Not a “shred of evidence” is correct. Your so called witnesses are what smarter observers call delusional.
At any rate, your primitive silly little beliefs would not bother me were it not for the fact that your judgemental and neo-facsist little bretheren envision a theocracy complete with morality police… At least the right wing side of your clan. Therefore, Xians are not just the harmless little churchgoers who clog the Ihop on Sundays… They are a dangerous militant group hellbent on setting back humanity’s progress to at least the Dark Age level.
#25 – No one has witnessed this Jesus first hand.
So it is your position that Jesus did not exist at all and that thousands of people, followers and nonfollowers alike, who did see him personally were all delusional? It’s your call whether you accept the testimony of those who were there at the time, but to deny that anyone at all had firsthand experience with a historical figure like comes off as just as delusional as you suggest others of being. Maybe you’re one of those that thinks the holocaust and the moon landings didn’t happen either.
26 – The first book of the New Testament was written about 100 years after the alleged death of Christ. Where are these eyewitness accounts?
But I’m talking about today. No one ALIVE is a witness to anything. Plenty of the Glaze-eyed call themselves Witnesses and that is what I was refering to. There is nothing to have witnessed. Grandpa was sick, they prayed, Granpa got better. They didn’t witness Jesus. They witnessed an old sick guy get better (and he’s still doing great and going fishing this weekend). A drunk driver crashed into Jill’s Honda, ripping it in half, but Jill walked away with only a few cuts. Jesus? No, physics. Obviously, the car was struck in a way that prevented serious injury to the driver despite massive body damage.
Moreso, our observational understanding of the natural universe alone tells us the the miraculous tales of healing the sick and magically creating foodstuffs is absurd.
And don’t drag the holocaust or the moon landing into this. Those are events with actual documentation, evidence, records, living witnesses, filmed footage, etc… Your Jesus is likely to have never existed, but if he did, he was the son of Joseph (or whoever got it on with Mary), and a mortal.
Anyone interested in a more detailed debate should google “historical proof Jesus”. you’ll find links to both sides of the argument, including a Wikipedia article. And we all know that if its in Wikipedia it must be true.
😉
I recommend reading the first 4 links and the 8th (Wikipedia) personally.
27 – The NT books of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses within their less-than-100-year lifetimes.
You are correct — no one ALIVE is a witness to much of anything that happened more than 100 years ago. Miraculous things were witnessed and the story recorded by eyewitnesses. It’s only absurd if it didn’t happen and we have no way to prove whether it did or not.
What details of the 20th century that are facts to us today will be dismissed as legend and delusions in another 2000 years because it will seem absurd to the people of the future?
For the Jesus as Myth debate, here’s a really good web page. It’s not proof, of course, neither legal nor scientific. But, it does give reason to doubt whether the man ever existed at all.
http://tinyurl.com/34amgh
For me, sections 3, 4, and especially 8 cast huge doubt.
#19 – Mike,
Your first point demonstrates a lack of understanding of science. Your second has it backwards. I’m not saying that complex beings, like ourselves can’t create simpler beings. I’m saying that complexity and apparent design come from long periods of cumulative selection. The god hypothesis presupposes the existence of complexity without offering a mechanism for its creation.
Cause and effect are violated completely by quantum mechanics. Things pop into existence from the quantum soup, so to speak. But, they are not complex highly intelligent creatures that can create whole universes at the rate of one a week.
The god hypothesis flies up its own asshole in endless recursion. There must be a god creator and a god creator creator and a god creator creator creator, etc.
#30, no, Scott, my first point was just a cheap critique of your standard rebuttal for people with opinions contrary to yours that humans are the cause of global warming is to say “well, all real scientists are in consensus, so that makes it fact. And if some don’t agree, either they aren’t relevant or are in the pocket of an oil company”
As to the second… you’re apparently so blind in your desires to argue against people’s belief in a God, that you didn’t even stop to notice that my comment was simply challenging your logic in saying to the effect “God can’t exist because that requires complexity being created by greater complexity.” I certainly didn’t claim any belief that universes can be created in a week… or even two… so why you continue to bring it up is beyond me. And complexity is relative anyway, I would say a new system that allows for evolution is already more complex than one that mirrors ours in every way except is static and can not.
And yes, any notion of a God does lead to recursion. “Who created he who created me?” But our universe itself has its own similar questions. Where does our universe originate and reside? Is it sitting in a bell jar on a desk in some greater universe outside of ours? And how about that universe? It never ends. But it does provide the potential for good fiction I suppose.
#29 – It’s only absurd if it didn’t happen and we have no way to prove whether it did or not.
What’s absurd is that you think Mary was a virgin… Or Jesus rose from the dead… Or he could heal lepers with just a touch of his hand… Or that any of the BS, that never happened before and never happened since, happened then.
It’s also absurd that all these myths and legends are stolen from other myths and legends and you guys never seem to notice that.
It’s also absurd that these threads always seem to attract people who only comment on their pet issues. How about you guys lend an opinion to non-Jesus thread? And try not to invoke Jesus when commenting on fuel cells or Windows Vista bugs or whatever.
You know… it’s all just absurd.
food for thought, cool video
#31 – Mike,
Actually, the universe doesn’t really have exactly the same issue. The stuff of the earliest universe could have popped into being from the quantum soup in some way without violation of any current physical theories. There are many questions about this, including the bit about not being able to understand the very first 10^-43 second. Why is there mostly matter rather than antimatter? What is the dark matter? What is the dark energy? Are there more spatial dimensions? Science may or may not be able to answer such questions.
Religion teaches us not to ask.
God/FSM/whatever, as a complex being, would require a much more detailed explanation than quantum soup because he/she/it is not simple and fundamental, but is of the type of complexity that takes a very long time to create through processes like natural selection that can indeed lead to complexity.