That was one such criticism that is coming from 'modern atheists.'
Atheists have shredded Dawkins' probability argument:
You must be registered for see links
"Despite my admiration for much of Dawkins’s work, I’m afraid that I’m among those scientists who must part company with him here. Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I’m forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he’s actually more an amateur. I don’t pretend to know whether there’s more to the world than meets the eye and, for all I know, Dawkins’s general conclusion is right. But his book makes a far from convincing case.
...
One reason for the lack of extended argument in The God Delusion is clear: Dawkins doesn’t seem very good at it. Indeed he suffers from several problems when attempting to reason philosophically. The most obvious is that he has a preordained set of conclusions at which he’s determined to arrive. Consequently, Dawkins uses any argument, however feeble, that seems to get him there and the merit of various arguments appears judged largely by where they lead.
The most important example involves Dawkins’s discussion of philosophical arguments for the existence of God as opposed to his own argument against God, which he presents as the intellectual heart of his book. Considering arguments for God, Dawkins is careful to recite the many standard objections to them and writes that the traditional proofs are “vacuous,” “dubious,” “infantile,” and “perniciously misleading.” But turning to his own Ultimate Boeing 747 argument against God, Dawkins is suddenly uninterested in criticism and writes that his argument is “unanswerable.” So why, you might wonder, is a clever philosophical argument for God subject to withering criticism while one against God gets a free pass and is deemed devastating?
...
In any case, there are some grounds for questioning whether Dawkins’s project is even meaningful. As T.S. Eliot famously observed, to ask whether we would have been better off without religion is to ask a question whose answer is unknowable. Our entire history has been so thoroughly shaped by Judeo-Christian tradition that we cannot imagine the present state of society in its absence. But there’s a deeper point and one that Dawkins also fails to see. Even what we mean by the world being better off is conditioned by our religious inheritance. What most of us in the West mean—and what Dawkins, as revealed by his own Ten Commandments, means—is a world in which individuals are free to express their thoughts and passions and to develop their talents so long as these do not infringe on the ability of others to do so. But this is assuredly not what a better world would look like to, say, a traditional Confucian culture. There, a new and improved world might be one that allows the readier suppression of individual differences and aspirations. The point is that all judgments, including ethical ones, begin somewhere and ours, often enough, begin in Judaism and Christianity. Dawkins should, of course, be applauded for his attempt to picture a better world. But intellectual honesty demands acknowledging that his moral vision derives, to a considerable extent, from the tradition he so despises.6 "
You must be registered for see links
Quoting from this PDF is a bit of a pain - gotta type it out:
"Consider fractals--those wonderful mathematical object that have attracted so much artistic attention. It isn't hard to find pictures of these on the web. A fractal can have an incredibly complex structure, containing all sorts of intricate patterns forms, and variations. Yet fractals are amazing, not only because of their complexity, but because of their underlying simplicity. Typically, a fractal is generated by the repeated application of a simple mathematical procedure. Fractals typically are self-similar, which means (more or less) that similar patterns are repeated over and over again at larger and smaller scales. The immense complexity of a fractal is built up from an original simplicity that is not visible to the unaided eye. This does not mean that the complexity isn't real, or that fractals actually are only simple and not complex. (I'll have more to say about this topic later.) I t just means that the complexity is a logical consequence of a few much simpler facts. Once we assume that there exist sets of points obeying certain simple rules, we are forced by sheer logic to asdmit the existence of the whole structure of the fractal, with all its exquisite patterns, stunning intricacy, and built-in quantities of information at every scale.
Fractals are not unique in this respect. The same theme recurs again and again throughout mathematics and logic. One need only look at the subject of set theory to realize how much complexity can arise from a few simple rules. Beginning with a handful of axioms that seem self-evident, set theorists derive the existence of infinitely many sets that have infinitely complex structures. Even the old geometry of Euclid exhibits this feature. From a small set of axioms and postulates, one can derive a multitude of theorems and deuce the existence of an endless diversity of forms. All major mathematical theories are like this. Once you assume a few basic rules, you can deduce a huge number of new facts and prove the existence of a huge number of new structures--perhaps including things you hadn't dreamed of in advance."
There is more in there - but the basic idea is that when discussing the notion of God - we are discussing a very wide range of notions. God does not have to have been 'developed' but can be a logical consequence of the existence of the universe in a similar sense that Set Theory generates sets of limitless inevitable consequences and fractals generate vast amounts of complexity from simple routines that are inherent in the initial criteria and all of its outcomes are inevitable products of that formula.
You must be registered for see links
"Dawkins's reply to the argument has two parts, one positive and one
negative. The positive part consists in describing a third
alternative, different from both chance and design, as the
explanation of biological complexity. He agrees that the eye, for
example, could not have come into existence by chance, but the
theory of evolution by natural selection is capable of explaining
its existence as due neither to chance nor to design. The negative
part of the argument asserts that the hypothesis of design by God
is useless as an alternative to the hypothesis of chance, because
it just pushes the problem back one step. In other words: who made
God? "A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity
because any God capable of designing anything would have to be
complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own
right."
All explanations come to an end somewhere. The real opposition
between Dawkins's physicalist naturalism and the God hypothesis is
a disagreement over whether this end point is physical,
extensional, and purposeless, or mental, intentional, and
purposive. On either view, the ultimate explanation is not itself
explained. The God hypothesis does not explain the existence of God,
and naturalistic physicalism does not explain the laws of physics.
...
I agree with Dawkins that the issue of design versus purely physical
causation is a scientific question. He is correct to dismiss Stephen
Jay Gould's position that science and religion are "non-overlapping
magisteria." The conflict is real. But although I am as much of an
outsider to religion as he is, I believe it is much more difficult
to settle the question than he thinks. I also suspect there are
other possibilities besides these two that have not even been
thought of yet. The fear of religion leads too many scientifically
minded atheists to cling to a defensive, world-flattening
reductionism. Dawkins, like many of his contemporaries, is hobbled
by the assumption that the only alternative to religion is to
insist that the ultimate explanation of everything must lie in
particle physics, string theory, or whatever purely extensional
laws govern the elements of which the material world is composed.
...
That conceptual purification launched the extraordinary development
of physics and chemistry that has taken place since the seventeenth
century. But reductive physicalism turns this description into an
exclusive ontology. The reductionist project usually tries to
reclaim some of the originally excluded aspects of the world, by
analyzing them in physical--that is, behavioral or
neurophysiological--terms; but it denies reality to what cannot be
so reduced. I believe the project is doomed--that conscious
experience, thought, value, and so forth are not illusions, even
though they cannot be identified with physical facts. "
It's okay, we all need to run from evidence-based conclusions until we're exhausted, sometimes.
Death and heaven are major red-herrings for religions.
If you actually look into the substance of scripture, the focus is not so much on death and who gets to go where - but on life and what one should be doing within it.
This is because most scripture - IE - what most of the literate individuals of the time wrote about or recorded from sages/wise men was in regards to the philosophies of the spirit of life. They are spiritual.
Religion is more of a specific school of thought regarding these philosophies and the history of that interpretation. This is why science can become a religion - or, rather, the faith in the accuracy of a given scientific theory becomes a religious institution within scientific circles.
This is why, elsewhere, I've spoken of the importance of dragons.
The story of the Dragon and the war in the heavens is a key component of how we came to be in the first place. Whether you interpret it as a lost account of scientifically and industrially advanced civilizations or a metaphysical spiritual reference - the result is roughly the same (though I would argue the spiritual notion applies even if we assume a real/technological element to the origins).
It is also a prophecy of our role in the universe and our tasking as individuals.
Whether or not that is ordained by the supreme being that created the universe - or is a philosophy passed down from a physical history long since forgotten is an issue of semantics, in my opinion. The true faith should be to the higher process described - not the individual entities and accounts of favoritism (although I do believe prophecy has its value and should be heeded).
It is my observation that for every one person who truly understands faith at the worlds' end there are well over a hundred who sing praises in the name of a similar faith without a true sense of what it is they have faith in. This is not new - it is part of the human condition and it is reinforced by religions that reduce spirituality and faith to a political institution in the quest for worldly influence.
Note that the beast of prophecy has many heads and that the harlot(s) who ride upon it will be consumed by it.
Frankly - if you go to church to find faith... you're going to the wrong place (it is unfortunate, but very often true). Which - if you look in the scriptures of the faith proclaimed by the churches - you'll find this is often the case. The spiritual leaders don't find faith through religious adherence - but through deep challenges to their understanding of the world after great strife.
Most often - they came with unpopular words for the deeply religious, telling them that they had lost their way. Ezekiel lambasted Israel and prophesied that they would be destroyed, rebuilt, and besieged by the Ishmaelites (... Those who claimed to be descended from Hagar and Ishmael - who the Arab Muslims claim to be). The prophecies of Ezekiel are... frankly... eerie - because they are pretty much playing out letter by letter - and that doesn't sit comfortably with many people who like to take scripture as endless metaphor and "you can interpret it how you want."
The fact that "The Sun turned black" and "The Moon Turned to Blood" is insistent on the importance of a solar eclipse and a blood moon... which we just had - notably, in October, there will have been three blood moons on Jewish holidays within the year... which is like the first and last time that's projected to happen.
Keep in mind that this is also the same man who said that 2/3 of Israel would die and there is speculation that Iran already has nuclear warheads developed and our estimates of their uranium enrichment capabilities are off.
It's a little ****ing creepy, to be honest.
Granted - "when aren't there eclipses and harvest moons - and when isn't there an earthquake and some tense geopolitics, somewhere" ... but you throw in some of Jesus' own prophecies regarding that the generation that sees Israel reborn as a nation will not pass away before the prophecy of Israel is fulfilled....
Like I say - creepy.
Even if we throw out some kind of supernatural insight into the future - then we are dealing with the notion that enough people in power and influence over the world are "playing by the script" - and the script results in "Armageddon."
Which means we're almost literally in the plot of Neon Genesis: Evangelion... and that doesn't inspire much confidence.
So - prophecy
Or a new world order obsessed with playing according to prophecy for whatever reasons they may have. ... Which... in itself could be part of the prophecy....
So... *shrug*
I'm just going to go cuddle with cat on one shoulder and my rifle on the other - then stand by for:
[video=youtube;fufeMmZ9Luk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fufeMmZ9Luk[/video]
I'm totally turning into a berzerker before taking a lance to the face.
(I actually don't believe it's the end of all hope - that is just an -old- AMV from way back when that is downright awesome and fits perfectly with the theme of NGE).
You must be registered for see links
Nightwish and NGE go hand-in-hand - at least many of their earlier albums do.
I know - you probably aren't interested in much of this. That's fine. Its purpose is simply to exist.
