3 ms·

The book covers science based theories that are alternatives to creationism, but talks more about why and how religion formed as a self-propagating meme. People

The book covers science based theories that are alternatives to creationism, but talks more about why and how religion formed as a self-propagating meme. People's individual experiences just don't add much to that argument, and he isn't trying to refute individual experiences. It's just out of place. > An argument about why something doesn't exist, no matter how convincing, becomes invalidated if conclusive evidence emerges demonstrating that it does. Personal experience would never, ever qualify as conclusive evidence, because there is no way to test or verify any of the claims made. > Why don't you think personal experience is relevant to a discussion of why God exists? My claim as that it was not relevant to the scope of the book specifically, but I'll answer that question. You may find it offensive, but since you're asking... I think every single person that believes in religion does so only due to indoctrination, or because they are seeking to fill some void in their life. That's it. And so I dismiss their accounts entirely. In fact, I feel a degree of pity for them. Organized religions are nonsense for many reasons, and if we remove them, then all we are left with is an unprovable, untestable claim based on absolutely nothing, which is more complex than the alternative which means Occam is sufficient reason to dismiss until there is reason not to do so.

nprateem 3y ago
But this is just restrictive. Regardless of your own opinions you should consider all evidence. By refusing to consider such claims you close yourself off to the possibility there may in fact be ways to verify them for yourself. Yet this won't ever be entertained due to bias. Perhaps some of those who claim god exists followed some reproducible method that convinced them. Ignoring the personal experience dimension would never uncover such information. Even a discussion of religion as memes, while it may be true, wouldn't make one deluded to believe in God if a way to verify its existence for oneself could be found. Ie religion spreading as a meme doesn't prove God doesn't exist. It may just be that the majority of people believe without discovering it (if it exists), but that in itself doesn't preclude its existence. Perhaps it only reveals its existence under certain circumstances for example. As to your final paragraph there seems to be a general conflation between organised religion and God. The book is the God delusion, not the organised religion delusion. It's this conflation and obvious bias that makes the book's argument weak.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Unverifiable anecdotes indistinguishable from delusion are not and can not be considered evidence. It's as simple as that.
  - nprateem 3y ago
    Yes you're absolutely right. But how would we know if they were indistinguishable from delusion unless we performed tests? Anyway, let's leave it there.

nprateem 3y ago

But this is just restrictive. Regardless of your own opinions you should consider all evidence. By refusing to consider such claims you close yourself off to the possibility there may in fact be ways to verify them for yourself. Yet this won't ever be entertained due to bias. Perhaps some of those who claim god exists followed some reproducible method that convinced them. Ignoring the personal experience dimension would never uncover such information. Even a discussion of religion as memes, while it may be true, wouldn't make one deluded to believe in God if a way to verify its existence for oneself could be found. Ie religion spreading as a meme doesn't prove God doesn't exist. It may just be that the majority of people believe without discovering it (if it exists), but that in itself doesn't preclude its existence. Perhaps it only reveals its existence under certain circumstances for example. As to your final paragraph there seems to be a general conflation between organised religion and God. The book is the God delusion, not the organised religion delusion. It's this conflation and obvious bias that makes the book's argument weak.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
Unverifiable anecdotes indistinguishable from delusion are not and can not be considered evidence. It's as simple as that.
- nprateem 3y ago
  Yes you're absolutely right. But how would we know if they were indistinguishable from delusion unless we performed tests? Anyway, let's leave it there.