And therefore, God does not exist!

[rowboat]

So this evidently highly respected Richard Dawkins bloke is some kind of defender of Buddhist thought?????

No, he isn't. I've watched a short clip where he explains that he doesn't know much about Buddhism, but as so far as his understanding goes, "there are different varieties of Buddhism... and some of them are not so much religions but ways of life, as rules for living, and I could imagine that could be rather good... so to the extent that a variety of Buddhism refrains from supernatural magic I might well be sympathetic towards it..."

In other words, any mention of rebirth, previous lives, the 31 realms etc..., and Dawkins will return us to the camp of the "hallucinating deranged lunatics" with the rest of the religionists.

[Kim OHara]

So this evidently highly respected Richard Dawkins bloke is some kind of defender of Buddhist thought?????

Hi, Lyndon,
I'm sure you're not entirely serious but to clear up any doubts that others may have, he's "highly respected" for his biological work but more famous (although a bit less respected) for his militant anti-theism. And no, he is no "kind of defender of Buddhist thought" at all. His hatred of Christianity is more public than his hatred of other religions but he is a boringly rigid hard-line rationalist and he has no sympathy for anything that even looks like religion. It even takes over his children's book, "The Magic of Reality - how we know what’s really true".

Dawkins made himelf famous decades ago with The Selfish Gene (1976) and famous all over over again with The God Delusion (2006), a merciless attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular. Between those two he wrote a string of popular science books, mostly about evolution but including Unweaving the Rainbow (1998) which was a reply to those who said his hard-line scientific approach took all the pleasure and poetry out of life. He argued in that book that there was as much pleasure, as much magic, in science as in art or mythology, with the significant bonus that science was really true.
The Magic of Reality is a combination of The God Delusion and Unweaving the Rainbow, for younger readers. The first and last chapters are ‘What is reality? What is magic’ and ‘What is a miracle’. Reality, he says, is what we can perceive with our five senses, aided by if necessary by extensions such as telescopes and microscopes. Magic, he says, is slipperier but can be divided into ‘stage magic’, which tricks people into believing things which didn’t actually occur, ‘poetic magic’, the feel-good magic of a starry night or great painting, and ‘supernatural magic’, the magic of fairy stories and J K Rowling, which he rejects outright, saying, “we all know this kind of magic is just fiction and doesn’t happen in reality.” [emphasis added]

Kim

[Kim OHara]

So the philosophical atheists haven't been entirely silent. But it does seem that much philosophy of religion is being written noisily by people with religious axes to grind (such indeed as William Lane Craig). When I've dipped into that stuff, I've thought it either badly argued or starting from premisses we haven't much reason to believe or both: so my impression is that, if the world of Christian philosophy has been "utterly transformed" of late, it is largely a matter of quantity rather than quality. But I am, like most of my colleagues, too unimpressed/too lazy/short of time to bother to really get to grips with it.

Me too!


Kim

[Mkoll]

I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.

My strategy is to avoid argument altogether with those who vehemently claim the existence of God. I might test the waters, if you will, to see if they have some flexibility in their minds. If further talk may yield new perspectives on either side, it may be worth it to talk. But if not, there's really no point.

One of the prime rules of communication is to know your audience. I think a lot of crusaders of any stripe often forget this rule and seem to think that their arguments are so good that anyone should be able to understand them. That's just not the case in my experience. The minds of some people are simply dead set in some regards and it's, at best, a waste of time debating about those things.

The 8 worldly conditions are very powerful.

[Aloka]

I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.

[Benjamin]

I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.

Honestly, I don't think that's the best way to frame it. To give an example of what I mean:

"I am still waiting to see some good arguments against fairies."
"I am still waiting to see some good arguments against vampires."
"I am still waiting to see some good arguments against bigfoot."

I don't believe in a god for the simple reason that I can't find any good reasons to believe. Just like the above three. I shouldn't have to come up with detailed arguments against something I've seen no evidence for, because until the evidence is very compelling it's just an intellectual/philosophical exercise.

[tiltbillings]

And not touching, of course, those arguments that are not "lame."

What arguments would you consider not "lame"?

I can't think of any that stand up to serious scrutiny.

I have no idea of what arguments you have looked at. I do find, however, the Buddha's approach in the Nikayas quite reasonable. Outside of one very direct comment attributed by Ratthapala to the Buddha -- "The universe is without a Supreme God [Attaan.o loko anabhissaro]" -- in the Ratthapala Sutta, MN 82, the Buddha very intelligently dealt with the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos as being without any meaningful explanatory power as the primary way of dealing with the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos, as in this "theological" discussion initiated by the Buddha:

• "Again, monks, I [the Buddha] approached those ascetic and brahmins and said to them: 'Is it true, as they say, that you venerable ones teach and hold the view that whatever a person experiences...all that is caused by God's creation?' When they affirmed it, I said to them: 'If that is so, venerable sirs, then it is due to God's creation that people kill, steal ...[and otherwise act badly]. But those who have recourse to God's creation as the decisive factor, will lack the impulse and the effort doing this or not doing that. Since for them, really and truly, no (motive) obtains that this or that ought to be done or not be done...."' Anguttara Nikaya 3.61

Being without an ability to meaningfully explain anything, what purpose does the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos serve? The Buddha certainly saw no value in a god idea in terms of liberation, of awakening. One needs not try to disprove the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos for two reasons: It cannot, by its believers, be shown in any definitive way to exist, and it does not explain anything when pushed beyond superficial statements. And those who buy into the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos, when pushed to show what god explains, will almost invariably resort some such dodge as "God is beyond our understanding," "God works in mysterious ways," etc., which is another of saying that the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos cannot explain anything in a meaningful way.

So in this, I follow the Buddha's line of thought.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,



Metta,
Retro.

[Mkoll]

Greetings,



Metta,
Retro.

Quite so. Well played.

[sattva]

I have no argument because I just don't care if there is or is not a god that exists lol

[binocular]

it means that one will never be liberated from dukkha while the clinging to a belief in a creator God exists. the author explains
the Buddha's teachings on this quite clearly. it is not a matter of being fit to be a Buddhist or belonging to Buddhism- its a matter of following what the Fully Awakened One realised to be free of samsara

Of course it is a matter of fitting in and belonging. More importantly, it's also a matter of assuming that an unenlightened person can adequately understand the reasoning of an enlightened one.

Here are some good quotes and points in this thread:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=11082

???
I think those arguments are childish, suitable for teenagers perhaps, but not for adults.

Many of those arguments come down to "If God would exist or if God would be good, he would fulfill my every whim. But since my every whim isn't being fulfilled, God, obviously, either doesn't exist, or is evil."
That's the reasoning of children.

So in this, I follow the Buddha's line of thought.

So you claim to know what the Buddha meant?
You claim to have perfect understanding of the Buddha's teachings?

Here's one: I have never experienced anything that indicates that god exists.

A.k.a. "I've never seen God, therefore, God does not exist. My experiences are the absolute measure of what exists and what doesn't. I know better than anyone else."

Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.

The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice.

Oh, the irony to hear this from someone like Russell ...

[tiltbillings]

So in this, I follow the Buddha's line of thought.

So you claim to know what the Buddha meant?
You claim to have perfect understanding of the Buddha's teachings?

I always stand to be corrected in anything and everything I say. Are you going to show me with carefully reasoned and exampled argument that I am wrong in what I said, wrong in what preceded the statement you quoted? I'd be delighted that you could show me that what I said is not in line with the Buddha's thought.

[tiltbillings]

Many of those arguments come down to "If God would exist or if God would be good, he would fulfill my every whim. But since my every whim isn't being fulfilled, God, obviously, either doesn't exist, or is evil."
That's the reasoning of children.

That is, of course, assuming that one demands from the supposed god that every whim be fulfilled, and there is, of course, no reason to assume that that is a necessity in questioning the whys and wherefores of the supposed god. On the other hand it is not unreasonable for the supposed god's creations to ask of the supposed god why it created the way it did.

[Spiny Norman]

I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.

[plwk]

I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.