NY Times review of "The God Delusion"

[The Mad Hatter]

A couple weeks ago, I went to a Richard Dawkins lecture at McGill with my mom (who is slightly spiritual, and very susceptible to woo), and she seemed to enjoy it quite a bit. When I bought The God Delusion she seemed interested, and asked if she could read it when I finish it. So that was a good sign.

Parents talk, though, and I guess she told her Jewish friend about it, and her friend emailed her a very bad review by Jim Holt, and told my mom to forward it to me to see what I thought.

Here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/review/Holt.t.html?ex=1162530000&en=721652e7cecb381c&ei=5070)'s the review, for those of you who haven't seen it. The worst part is that in the email, she said, "If you don’t read anything else in the review, read the last line." The last line is a quote, saying, “It is the final proof of God’s omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.”

I seem to remember Dawkins addressing that review, and specifically that line in some radio interview, but I can't seem to find it. Does anyone know where he did it?

Also, does anyone know of any other responses to this article? So far it seems like a terrible misrepresentation of the book (though I'm only half-way through the book now), and it'd be nice if I had something to send my mom and her friend.

Thanks

[Charlie Monoxide]

Wow, you got to see Richard Dawkins live. I hope he comes down here and promotes his book. I tried to buy the "The God Delusion" but it's only in hardback right now. Instead I went to the library and got a couple of his earlier books.

Charlie (parsimonious 1/2 Scotsman) Monoxide

[TheAntiLuddite]

The worst part is that in the email, she said, "If you don’t read anything else in the review, read the last line." The last line is a quote, saying, “It is the final proof of God’s omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.”
Thanks

I have not read the book (although I intend to) but I have read a number of Dawkins' other books, and I would consider myself a bit of a fan. I didn't think the review was too horrible, about what I would expect from someone who appears to want to make a case for God. On most points the reviewer seemed to be even-handed, and even mentioned some data that I wasn't aware of (such as a Belgian priest first formulating the idea of a Big Bang). However, I couldn't help but laugh at your mother's friend's comment. I find it funny that someone would consider nonsensical gibberish spoken by a fictional character as a profoundly compelling proof for the existence of a deity.

Then again, my last sentence is a pretty good description of most "Holy" books. :D

[Skeptic]

Also, does anyone know of any other responses to this article? So far it seems like a terrible misrepresentation of the book (though I'm only half-way through the book now), and it'd be nice if I had something to send my mom and her friend.

I think the review is actually quite good--more or less fair to Dawkins, and shows the reviewer knows what he's talking about. But there's one point I think is a misrepresentation in the review:

In a particularly low blow, he accuses Richard Swinburne, a philosopher of religion and science at Oxford, of attempting to “justify the Holocaust,” when Swinburne was struggling to square such monumental evils with the existence of a loving God.

I haven't read the book, but it is extremely unlikely Dawkins accuses Swinburne of wanting to justify the holocaust, like neo-nazis do. Dawkins' point is that to "struggle to square such monumental evils with the existence of a loving God" forces one to justify the holocaust unless one is willing to give up the axiom that God exists.

Bering forced to a horrible conclusion one would rather not accept is ethically quite a different thing than enthusiastically endorsing it (like the neo-nazis do), of course, but Dawkins' point is that one is hardly forced to accept the holocaust has a justification in the first place, if one is only willing to reject the God hypothesis.

[Cosmo]

“It is the final proof of God’s omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.”

Erm, what? :confused:

[firecoins]

Richard Dawkins has done an interview for Point of Inquiry Podcast. If you have Itunes you can download it anytime. The link in my sig.

[Darth Rotor]

A couple weeks ago, I went to a Richard Dawkins lecture at McGill with my mom (who is slightly spiritual, and very susceptible to woo), and she seemed to enjoy it quite a bit. When I bought The God Delusion she seemed interested, and asked if she could read it when I finish it. So that was a good sign.

Parents talk, though, and I guess she told her Jewish friend about it, and her friend emailed her a very bad review by Jim Holt, and told my mom to forward it to me to see what I thought.

Here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/review/Holt.t.html?ex=1162530000&en=721652e7cecb381c&ei=5070)'s the review, for those of you who haven't seen it. The worst part is that in the email, she said, "If you don’t read anything else in the review, read the last line." The last line is a quote, saying, “It is the final proof of God’s omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.”

I seem to remember Dawkins addressing that review, and specifically that line in some radio interview, but I can't seem to find it. Does anyone know where he did it?

Also, does anyone know of any other responses to this article? So far it seems like a terrible misrepresentation of the book (though I'm only half-way through the book now), and it'd be nice if I had something to send my mom and her friend.

Thanks
Dawkins is not some burning bush. His energy and passion for his work and message comes off (to me) as sincere. How is this review "bad" for his book? It poses enough of an outline to the work to incite interest in the book. The reviewer does not slavishly kiss Dawkins' arse, which is good.

Another review, in The Economist (one of my favorite periodicals) treats Dawkins neutrally. It recommends Dawkins' latest as worth reading, and an example of both an apologetic for atheism, and for Christians a challenge to measure the robustness of their faith and philosophy.

I am happy to wait until it hits our library and check it out, but I am intrigued enough, yet again, with the word out on his work to give it my attention.

Economist poses the question, apparently not answered by Dawkins' text, on how to effect the transition (other than by slavishly following Dawkins' exhortations, and buying his book? :D ) from religion as a form of societal glue to another means, the problem that moralists have been struggling with for some centuries.

As a partial answer, I offer that Dawkins was most likely limiting his scope ( a book can only be so long!). The difficulty in transition as it played out in Europe is not trivial: over the course of 500 years, Martin Luther to mid 20th century, the blood shed and destruction wrought in attempting to wrest from the Church the societal baseline is still only partly successful, in the form of the Enlightenment based forms of Parliamnetary Socialism that are at work, and generally effective, in an increaasingly de-Christianized Europe. Is the rest of the world up for that sort of social transformation, and the included cost? It seems that in the case of the Muslims at least, the answer is no, and I am guessing that Muslims in general will offer Dawkins a resounding raspberry for how he packages his message, if not for the message itself.

DR

[andyandy]

it seemed a pretty well written article to me......

i'm assuming that the representations of dawkins' views in the book are accurate (they seem consistent with that which i've read previously) - and if so she raises some decent points....

but i'll have to wait til it comes out in paperback and i get a chance to read it :)

[Tamarillicent]

I seem to remember Dawkins addressing that review, and specifically that line in some radio interview, but I can't seem to find it. Does anyone know where he did it?

Dawkins talked about that on Penn Jillette's radio show. You can download it to listen to it at Penn Radio (http://www.pennradio.com)

[Dunstan]

I haven't read the book, but it is extremely unlikely Dawkins accuses Swinburne of wanting to justify the holocaust, like neo-nazis do. Dawkins' point is that to "struggle to square such monumental evils with the existence of a loving God" forces one to justify the holocaust unless one is willing to give up the axiom that God exists.

Bering forced to a horrible conclusion one would rather not accept is ethically quite a different thing than enthusiastically endorsing it (like the neo-nazis do), of course, but Dawkins' point is that one is hardly forced to accept the holocaust has a justification in the first place, if one is only willing to reject the God hypothesis.

Exactly. It's pretty clear from the context that Dawkins wasn't accusing Swinburne of supporting the Holocaust except in the sense of someone who believes in an omnipotent and benevolent God and tries to claim that it was for the "greater good" of mankind.

Here's the excerpt in question (it's p. 64 of my copy). Dawkins quotes a passage written by Swinburne claiming that "[a]lthough a good God regrets our suffering, his greatest concern is surely that each of us shall show patience, sympathy and generosity and, thereby, form a holy character. Some people badly need to be ill for their own sake, and some people badly need to be ill to provide important choices for others."

Dawkins responds:

This grotesque piece of reasoning, so damningly typical of the theological mind, reminds me of an occasion when I was on a television panel with Swinburne, and also with our Oxford colleague Professor Peter Atkins. Swinburne at one point attempted to justify the Holocaust on the grounds that it gave the Jews a wonderful opportunity to be courageous and noble. Peter Atkins splendidly growled, "May you rot in hell."

[The Mad Hatter]

Sorry, I guess I was a little unclear (and somewhat exaggerating) when I called it a "very bad review." It's unfavourable for the book, and it's pretty well-written in terms of language. I was just talking about how it deals with the actual content of the book. It's probably not all that bad in that respect either. I'll check out that Economist review.

I haven't had the time to actually check out many of the claims. Skeptic pointed out one.

Another part that bugs me is when she says:He dismisses the ontological argument as “infantile” and “dialectical prestidigitation” without quite identifying the defect in its logic, and he is baffled that a philosopher like Russell — “no fool” — could take it seriously.
Dawkins never pointed out the logical fallacy because he simply refuted it another way. He even quotes Bertrand Russell as saying, "It is easier to feel convinced that [the ontological argument] must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies." He is also not baffled that Russell took it seriously (although he only was convinced by it for a very brief time, when he was young, apparently) - in fact, he devotes a page or two to explain why he thinks Russell was so easily convinced by it.

She then saysHe seems unaware that this argument, though medieval in origin, comes in sophisticated modern versions that are not at all easy to refute.
At the beginning of the section, Dawkins very clearly states that there are many modern versions, although he doesn't say they aren't all easy to refute.

Dawkins talked about that on Penn Jillette's radio show. You can download it to listen to it at Penn Radio (http://www.pennradio.com/)

That's the one! Thanks.

Erm, what?

My thoughts exactly...

[Dark Jaguar]

That ontological argument just sounds idiotic. I decided to read Wikipedia's entry on it. While it may not represent any actual description of it, it's a piece of logic so I can at least debate it's merit.

Seems to me the main problem with the argument is just that it doesn't follow that just BECAUSE something would be "greater" if it existed, it has to exist. That doesn't make sense to me. Sure it would be greater (though that's still a subjective assessment), so? That still doesn't explain why it must exist. All it does is further define what would be the greatest thing. Then it goes on to say that if existing is better, than something better can be concieved than the greatest thing ever'd. Yeah, logical contradiction, but again this is just definitions here. I fail to see how this does anything other than say the definition needs work. It STILL doesn't demand a god exist. And, that said, a being can be concieved AS existing and still NOT exist. As far as I can tell, all the sophistry aside, that is the entire argument. "I can think of it existing, therefor it does exist."

No matter what form I look at, or layers (like an onion) they add to the step by step "god must exist" process, the jump to "god exists" is always tossed in at the end with no real link to it. They want an explanation of the logical error? In every form I've seen the argument in, that flaw is "non-sequiter".

[PenguinWarrior]

I don't wish to overstate things, but the ontological argument IS possibly the most idiotic argument I have ever seen. And I read The Sun once. It is not all that difficult to refute, and it constantly surprises me that anyone with enough intelligence to be able to write it down, doesn't have the intelligence to reject it.

Some flaws:

1. The assumption that independent standards of perfection, or even quality, exist. The universe has never been shown to have these, so you cannot say that "existance" is any more a fundamental "quality" than you can say being pink is, or being exactly 12 feet tall is. People who say there are independent standards of quality normally justify it by the existance of God I.E. you need to assume God exists, to show God exists. Circular reasoning.

2. The assumption that non-existant things have attributes in any meaningful sense. The argument only works if you can assign the quality of "existance" to an entiely hypothetical object. If not, the argument dies there and is basically only saying that "If perfect being existed, the perfect being would exist". This is an obvious tautology.

3. reductio ad absurdum. Imagine the strangest leprachaun that could possibly be sitting on your head. Now, clearly things that exist are stranger than things that don't exist (Truth is stranger than fiction, after all :-)) as having something really strange not happen to you is a lot less strange than having something really strange happen to you. Therefore the strangest leprachaun that could be sitting on your head must have the quality of existance. Therefore you have an incredibly strange leprechaun sitting on your head. Yes, I know I have no evidence, but my logic is impeccable. It cannot be pecked. Not even by a woodpecker (with a degree in advanced logicness).

4. It's blatantly a stupid argument. See also "qualia", "categorical imperative" and "Donald Rumsfeld on known unknowns".

Edit: Oh, and I've read the book. It was very good, although I've seen most of the arguments before, elsewhere. I liked the "The liklihood of God existing spontaneously must be less than the liklihood of the universe existing spontaneously, since he is an even more complex entity" argument, though. And it introduced me both to cargo Cults and www.godlessgeeks.com .

[thomps1d]

Oh, and I've read the book. It was very good, although I've seen most of the arguments before, elsewhere. I liked the "The liklihood of God existing spontaneously must be less than the liklihood of the universe existing spontaneously, since he is an even more complex entity" argument, though. And it introduced me both to cargo Cults and www.godlessgeeks.com .


I love what I've read of it so far (I'm about 3/4 through). Much of it is familiar to me - in fact, much of it is paraphrases of arguments I've been making for years (get out of my head, Dawkins!).

I particularly loved the approach he took to the ontological argument when he noted that there is a way to make God more perfect than he is in the ontological argument:

The most perfect God that could exist is one which is capable of creating the universe while simultaneously not existing itself. Therefore, if we buy into the ontological argument, God cannot exist because a God that doesn't exist is more perfect than one who does.

[sphenisc]

I don't wish to overstate things, but the ontological argument IS possibly the most idiotic argument I have ever seen. And I read The Sun once. It is not all that difficult to refute, and it constantly surprises me that anyone with enough intelligence to be able to write it down, doesn't have the intelligence to reject it.

Some flaws:

1. The assumption that independent standards of perfection, or even quality, exist. The universe has never been shown to have these, so you cannot say that "existance" is any more a fundamental "quality" than you can say being pink is, or being exactly 12 feet tall is. People who say there are independent standards of quality normally justify it by the existance of God I.E. you need to assume God exists, to show God exists. Circular reasoning.

2. The assumption that non-existant things have attributes in any meaningful sense. The argument only works if you can assign the quality of "existance" to an entiely hypothetical object. If not, the argument dies there and is basically only saying that "If perfect being existed, the perfect being would exist". This is an obvious tautology.

3. reductio ad absurdum. Imagine the strangest leprachaun that could possibly be sitting on your head. Now, clearly things that exist are stranger than things that don't exist (Truth is stranger than fiction, after all :-)) as having something really strange not happen to you is a lot less strange than having something really strange happen to you. Therefore the strangest leprachaun that could be sitting on your head must have the quality of existance. Therefore you have an incredibly strange leprechaun sitting on your head. Yes, I know I have no evidence, but my logic is impeccable. It cannot be pecked. Not even by a woodpecker (with a degree in advanced logicness).

4. It's blatantly a stupid argument. See also "qualia", "categorical imperative" and "Donald Rumsfeld on known unknowns".

Edit: Oh, and I've read the book. It was very good, although I've seen most of the arguments before, elsewhere. I liked the "The liklihood of God existing spontaneously must be less than the liklihood of the universe existing spontaneously, since he is an even more complex entity" argument, though. And it introduced me both to cargo Cults and www.godlessgeeks.com .

It is not possible to demonstrate that the ontological argument has the property 'most idiotic argument', without first showing that it exists, since an argument needs to exist in order to be "most idiotic". Please provide a link showing which version of the argument you claim to be most idiotic, so I can work out what you talking about. :p

[RandFan]

The worst part is that in the email, she said, "If you don’t read anything else in the review, read the last line." The last line is a quote, saying, “It is the final proof of God’s omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.” 1.) This is not a proof of anything.
2.) Save us from what? Christians believe that Christ will save them from the grave (resurrection). Certainly this statement doesn't make that argument so it raises the question, save us from what?
3.) Assuming that we were somehow saved, how does this prove god's omnipotence?

The statement is meaningless. It's typical of the kind of trite and often brain dead clichés that dominate society and it demonstrates that critical thinking is a real problem for many people. A person who thought critically would not likely entertain such a notion and certainly wouldn't sincerely repeat it.

[PenguinWarrior]

It is not possible to demonstrate that the ontological argument has the property 'most idiotic argument', without first showing that it exists, since an argument needs to exist in order to be "most idiotic". Please provide a link showing which version of the argument you claim to be most idiotic, so I can work out what you talking about. :p

Are you saying the argument doesn't exist? 'cause it does. I've seen it written down and everything. With INK. I'm confused.

Anyway, I've been attempting to find a good place to vent about it (thus my friends find me mysteriously steering conversations towards philosophical proofs of God, when what they really want to discuss is QI or Bones or something) and I came across this thread. And exploded. :D Plus, it's fun coming up with absurd analogies to it. My next one involves a troupe of ballet dancing pink elephants.

If you are at all serious (who knows on the internet, smilies be damned) I was talking about the argument: Imagine the most perfect being possible. Now, to be the most perfect being, it would of course have to exist, as clearly a being which exists is more perfect than one that does not. Therefore this perfect being must exist. Therefore God exists. I'm unaware of other versions, but I think to qualify as the same argument, they will hit the pitfalls I've outlined above. Perhaps I shall hit Google/Wikipedia to check.

See, the argument exists, I've written it there.

[sphenisc]

1.) This is not a proof of anything.
2.) Save us from what? Christians believe that Christ will save them from the grave (resurrection). Certainly this statement doesn't make that argument so it raises the question, save us from what?
3.) Assuming that we were somehow saved, how does this prove god's omnipotence?

The statement is meaningless. It's typical of the kind of trite and often brain dead clichés that dominate society and it demonstrates that critical thinking is a real problem for many people. A person who thought critically would not likely entertain such a notion and certainly wouldn't sincerely repeat it.

Yeesh! It's from a comic novel, already. Perhaps MadHatters mum just enjoyed the humour?


they might take consolation in the wise words of the Rev. Andrew Mackerel, the hero of Peter De Vries’s 1958 comic novel “The Mackerel Plaza”: “It is the final proof of God’s omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.”


[my bold]

[jimlintott]

God isn't going to save us, he's too busy trying to make a rock he can't lift.

[sphenisc]

Are you saying the argument doesn't exist? 'cause it does. I've seen it written down and everything. With INK. I'm confused.

Anyway, I've been attempting to find a good place to vent about it (thus my friends find me mysteriously steering conversations towards philosophical proofs of God, when what they really want to discuss is QI or Bones or something) and I came across this thread. And exploded. :D Plus, it's fun coming up with absurd analogies to it. My next one involves a troupe of ballet dancing pink elephants.

If you are at all serious (who knows on the internet, smilies be damned) I was talking about the argument: Imagine the most perfect being possible. Now, to be the most perfect being, it would of course have to exist, as clearly a being which exists is more perfect than one that does not. Therefore this perfect being must exist. Therefore God exists. I'm unaware of other versions, but I think to qualify as the same argument, they will hit the pitfalls I've outlined above. Perhaps I shall hit Google/Wikipedia to check.

See, the argument exists, I've written it there.

[I was attempting to ask for your wording in a light and witty manner, though clearly its properties of lightest and wittiest existed only in my own mind. ]

To deal with your points,
1. a) Why is an independent standard of perfection required - wouldn't an individual one do?

b)
The universe has never been shown to have these, so you cannot say that "existance" is any more a fundamental "quality" than you can say being pink is, or being exactly 12 feet tall is.

There is a jump in your logic here which I don't follow.

c)
People who say there are independent standards of quality normally justify it by the existance of God I.E. you need to assume God exists, to show God exists. Circular reasoning.

That fact that people normally use faulty reasoning to support an argument does not demonstrate that the conclusion is false.

2.

The assumption that non-existant things have attributes in any meaningful sense.


I'm afraid the idea that non-existant things have attributes is very widely held. Unicorns have horns, primes are only divisible by themselves and one, and money can't buy you love.


The argument only works if you can assign the quality of "existance" to an entiely hypothetical object. If not, the argument dies there..

In this case you can; the initial request is to "Imagine the most perfect being possible. " "Possible" indicates it is has the capacity/potential to exist. If you can't assign the quality of "existence" then what you've imagined isn't "possible" - so you need to adjust you imagined being in order to fulfil the first part of the argument.


3.
The analogy fails because I don't accept that the strangest things necessarily exist.

4. Argument by assertion - a fallacy - and therefore imperfect - so it probably isn't God. :)

[chriswl]

3. reductio ad absurdum. Imagine the strangest leprachaun that could possibly be sitting on your head. Now, clearly things that exist are stranger than things that don't exist (Truth is stranger than fiction, after all :-)) as having something really strange not happen to you is a lot less strange than having something really strange happen to you. Therefore the strangest leprachaun that could be sitting on your head must have the quality of existance. Therefore you have an incredibly strange leprechaun sitting on your head. Yes, I know I have no evidence, but my logic is impeccable. It cannot be pecked. Not even by a woodpecker (with a degree in advanced logicness).
I like that. In fact I think the connection between strangeness and existence is much better than between perfection and existence. It's not obvious to me that non-existence is imperfect. Perhaps nothingness is the purest, most perfect thing of all. Which would presumably prove that God doesn't exist.

Kant's answer was "existence is not a predicate". Existence is not a property that things posess in the way that being green or weighing three tons is. It is just our language that tricks us into viewing it in this way.

[T'ai Chi]

God isn't going to save us, he's too busy trying to make a rock he can't lift.

Could god create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

1. Yes --> not all powerful (can't lift the rock)
2. No --> not all powerful (can't create the rock)

However, 2. is flawed logic.

The answer is probably No. But this doesn't imply not all powerful. It implies that he can lift anything, so he couldn't create a rock he couldn't lift. That's not unpowerful, that's basic logic.

Is god crippled by the fact he can't cripple himself? Nope.

OR
A rock is a finite object. In other words it is a limited thing. We would be asking god to take something that is finite by nature and make it infinite in size. This is both logically and actually impossible. You might as well ask god to make a square circle.

As C.S. Lewis says “You may attribute miracles to Him but, not nonsense.”

OR

If god is not limited by human logic, he would create the unliftable rock and then lift it. :)

[hammegk]

Kant's answer was "existence is not a predicate".
True as always. Materialists (and wannabes) should carefully consider that statement. :p


PS. Thought Exists. :D

.

[Raskolnikov123]

3. reductio ad absurdum. Imagine the strangest leprachaun that could possibly be sitting on your head. Now, clearly things that exist are stranger than things that don't exist (Truth is stranger than fiction, after all :-)) as having something really strange not happen to you is a lot less strange than having something really strange happen to you. Therefore the strangest leprachaun that could be sitting on your head must have the quality of existance. Therefore you have an incredibly strange leprechaun sitting on your head. Yes, I know I have no evidence, but my logic is impeccable. It cannot be pecked. Not even by a woodpecker (with a degree in advanced logicness).

My favorite variation on this is to use the ontological argument to argue that a perfect proof of God's non-existence must exist.

[T'ai Chi]

Call it a leprachaun, tea pot orbiting pluto, invisible pink unicorn, FSM, whatever. Give it whatever label you'd like.

Still says nothing about the general notion of god(s).

[thomps1d]

Still says nothing about the general notion of god(s).

Actually, that's exactly what it does address. Failing to recognize that isn't the fault of the argument, but rather of the listener.

Ultimately, logic and reason demonstrate that the only way to believe in any God or Gods is through blind, unreasoning faith. And if that works for someone, great. As long as they don't push it on anyone else, it's not my business.

[hgc]

Wow, you got to see Richard Dawkins live. I hope he comes down here and promotes his book. I tried to buy the "The God Delusion" but it's only in hardback right now. Instead I went to the library and got a couple of his earlier books.

Charlie (parsimonious 1/2 Scotsman) Monoxide
Wouldn't he be arrested for blasphemy if he were to visit Orlando? :D

[skeptic griggsy]

How can one even condsider a God when that is an empty notion? With Keith Parsons , I state:" Occult powers wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable way for unfathomable purposes just do not seem to be the basies for any sort of a good explanantion.Theistic 'explanations ' therefore only seem to serve the purpose of hiding our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf." The god notion is just the tautology, God wills what He wills!

[PenguinWarrior]

[I was attempting to ask for your wording in a light and witty manner, though clearly its properties of lightest and wittiest existed only in my own mind. ]

Ah, the smilie confused me somewhat. They often do, actually.


To deal with your points,
1. a) Why is an independent standard of perfection required - wouldn't an individual one do?


No, individual standards are entirely arbitrary and not physically "real" in the way that say, heat or electrical conductance is. If there is no firm universal standard, then you cannot say that a "perfect" being can have any particular qualities, as what are regarded as "Good or bad" qualities for an object to possess are entirely human creations, and have no basis in physics. I.e. if perfection doesn't really exist independently, then no independent qualities can be assigned to it.

Even if you do not agree with my thoughts about inherent ideas of quality, would you agree that the notion is at best UNPROVEN, and thus cannot be assumed as part of an argument?


b)


There is a jump in your logic here which I don't follow.

See above.


c)
That fact that people normally use faulty reasoning to support an argument does not demonstrate that the conclusion is false.

True. But (as I said above) until you show that there ARE independent standards of perfection that are intrinsic to the universe, you cannot assume it in an argument.


2.


I'm afraid the idea that non-existant things have attributes is very widely held. Unicorns have horns, primes are only divisible by themselves and one, and money can't buy you love.


Unicorns don't have horns, because they don't exist. A hypothetical unicorn may said to have a hypothetical horn, but the statement "Unicorns have horns" is false. it's the same way that the hypothetical perfect being has hypothetical existance, but hypothetical existance is not the same thing as physical existance, and so the argument again reduces to "If god exists, god would exist". Or to put it another way, the CONCEPT of unicorns exists as does the concept that unicorns have horns. But unicorns do not exist, and thus cannot have horns. Primes do exist, though in a different sense of "exist" that is not physical (In this case, as in all maths, concept and entity are identical.). Money exists, too, although it is a system rather than purely a physical object. Love is a type of brain state.


In this case you can; the initial request is to "Imagine the most perfect being possible. " "Possible" indicates it is has the capacity/potential to exist. If you can't assign the quality of "existence" then what you've imagined isn't "possible" - so you need to adjust you imagined being in order to fulfil the first part of the argument.


Again this assumes that perfect has an independent meaning, like 2040 degrees celcius, and not a subjective one, like "pretty" or "strange". Also, this paragraph actually seems to be another flaw in the argument. If an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being isn't physically possible, then God (at least as described by the abrahamic religions) can't exist, no matter what the argument states. Maybe imaginable would work better, though since people's imaginations vary, what this means is not all that clear, either.


3.
The analogy fails because I don't accept that the strangest things necessarily exist.

No, the anology succeeds because I don't accept that a perfect thing can necessarily exist. They're wrong for the same reason.


4. Argument by assertion - a fallacy - and therefore imperfect - so it probably isn't God. :)

Yes, point four was a joke. Occasionally I do this. I believe the terrible woodpecker pun was a clue. (Although I suspect you realise this) The post also contains hyperbole (I don't really think it's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, though I do think it is fairly valueless), so keep an eye out.

Anyway, I hoped that helped. I really do think it's a silly argument, though one that has somehow convinced smart people.

[skeptic griggsy]

What about showing up the article? Dawkins adequately shows up evolution theism and errancy . How about comments on that? The whole god thing is just begging the question anyway!

[Charlie Monoxide]

Wouldn't he be arrested for blasphemy if he were to visit Orlando? :DAnd then he would be stoned at the Orlando Holy Land Experince.
http://www.holylandexperience.com/

This place was somewhat controversial a few months back with it's tax status. Good ol' Jeb Bush stepped in and saved the day. I'm pretty sure this is the only business that this was custom-made for: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652629/posts

Charlie (9 circles of hell rollercoaster) Monoxide

[RandFan]

Yeesh! It's from a comic novel, already. Perhaps MadHatters mum just enjoyed the humour? I don't think so.

The worst part is that in the email, she said, "If you don’t read anything else in the review, read the last line." The last line is a quote, saying, “It is the final proof of God’s omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.” The Mad Hatter is asking how to respond. He knows his mom better than I. It's safe to presume he has asked this question for good reason. My point is valid. He can choose to use it or ignore it.

[Foster Zygote]

When I read the article in print last week I did get a sense that the author is a bit hostile to Dawkins' claims. He wasn't overtly unfair, but I definitly gat the impression that he doesn't like the book, and perhapse even finds its subject matter offensive. I would speculate that it might have something to do with what I read at the bottom of the first page.
Jim Holt, a regualar contributor to The New Yorker and The New York Times Magazine, is working on a book about the puzzle of existence.

There were little things too. In the 8th paragraph the author states:
The beauty of Darwinian evolution, as Dawkins never tires of observing,...
To me that sounds as if the author is perhaps tired of hearing of Darwinian evolution. Maybe it's just me, does anyone else get that impression?

I was also a bit disappointed that in the same paragraph the author brings up the "entropy" issue, suggesting to me, that he doesn't really have much understanding of the science he's referencing.

I'd like to see Mr. Holt's book when it is completed and I think it only fair that Richard Dawkins should write the NYT book review for it.:D

[EGarrett]

Read most of that wikipedia page...and some of the responses here.

Another hole I found in the Ontological argument is the statement that the idea of God can be conceived in the human mind.

Ummm...no it cannot. "God" is outside all of our perceptions, all of our observed knowledge. There is NOT a way for you to perceive a being like that.

[The Mad Hatter]

Thanks for the replies. I was supposed to have dinner with my mom and her friend, but that didn't work out. When we do talk about it, I'll probably explain how it misrepresents a lot of what the book actually says. Then I'll refute that last line, which shouldn't be too hard (I've since written a long explanation of why ignorance is not bliss at some other message board, so I already know what to say). But most of all, I'll encourage them to read the book, so they can see for themselves. Maybe I'll give them that Economist article.


My mom's friend said something very confusing though. I guess my mom told her I was doing well in my critical thinking course (don't people have anything better to talk about?), and she says, "Oh, that's great! That's one of the most important skills you could ever learn!"