# Dawkins and Religion.
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613
**Category:** Religion and Spirituality
**Created:** [December 4, 2006, 3:50am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613 "2006-12-04T03:50:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Mastriani](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Mastriani)
#### Post date: [December 5, 2006, 2:41am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/21 "2006-12-05T02:41:58Z")
I fail to see how it is deductively correct when the second postulate of the premise is based upon an undefineable moral value?
Wouldn’t that make logical failure?
---
### Author:  [@Tristan](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tristan)
#### Post date: [December 5, 2006, 3:54am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/22 "2006-12-05T03:54:02Z")
> [@Mastriani](#):
>
> I fail to see how it is deductively correct when the second postulate of the premise is based upon an undefineable moral value?
>
> Wouldn’t that make logical failure?
## R \> P P \> E
R \> E
In the way it is structured, it’s validity is a given, but it’s soundness could be held in question.
---
### Author:  [@JP1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/JP1)
#### Post date: [December 5, 2006, 4:02am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/23 "2006-12-05T04:02:37Z")
> [@Obw](#):
>
> > [@Prodigious Mind](#):
> >
> > Deductively logical argument.
>
> Or at least it would be it the second premise wasn’t bullshit
Pretty much.
The syllogistic argument is valid: the conclusion certainly flows legitimately from the premise. The issue is, I guess, whether the premises are valid to begin with: are all people evil all of the time? If not, the argument is unsound not on logical grounds but on empirical ones. Inductive reasoning is useless without empirical support and that is where this “argument” falls down.
---
### Author:  [@Disciple\_of\_light](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Disciple_of_light)
#### Post date: [December 5, 2006, 2:39pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/24 "2006-12-05T14:39:44Z")
> [@Prodigious Mind](#):
>
> I’ve discussed many times the topic of Religion being evil. Many have disagreed because they fail to comprehend what exactly it is I mean. Nonetheless they have made many faulty attempts to disprove me. I am not an atheist, I am not a theist, I am not a crazy weed smoking hinduist or w/e they do. I am simply a person who could care less about what I am, but I am more concerned with the truth that religion is evil.
I think a greater evil , if we are going to use the word “evil” , is not to be present in the now , but wrapped up in all sorts of BS . For example , if I thought religion was really evil , if I thought that was “the truth” , as you say , I would just do what everyone else I know did who never fell for the organized religion thing , ignore it , never mention it , if your still talking about something you say doesnt bother you then it means it still bothers in you in some way , or at least has you thinking , but thinking about what ? Thinking about something which means nothing and has no value anyway . I think there should be a limited amount of time spent on these things , you make a conclusion and you get off the subject , focus on something else worthwhile , like women & drink
If you couldnt care less about religion you wouldnt talk about it … does it make an Interesting debate ? Well it really depends on who you are but I dont think so , especially if your minds already made up that religion is BS , who wants to talk about religion at a party full of people havin a good time ? Unless its a party full of dorks . Why would you want to even convert someone from being theist to atheist through discussion and debate , since if what you know is the truth then its a matter of time before they see the light anyway , so the time is wasted really . It would be be better to discuss food instead of religion . Its thinking about religious & philosophical problems constantly thats “evil” . I admire Dorkins too , but he has to let it go or have a heart attack thinking about it
.
---
### Author:  [@Mastriani](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Mastriani)
#### Post date: [December 5, 2006, 3:51pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/25 "2006-12-05T15:51:36Z")
> [@Tristan](#):
>
> > [@Mastriani](#):
> >
> > I fail to see how it is deductively correct when the second postulate of the premise is based upon an undefineable moral value?
> >
> > Wouldn’t that make logical failure?
>
> ## R \> P P \> E
>
> R \> E
>
> In the way it is structured, it’s validity is a given, but it’s soundness could be held in question.
Realising that in technicality you are correct, I prefer substance over construct. Thanks Tristan.
---
### Author:  [@Tristan](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tristan)
#### Post date: [December 5, 2006, 4:32pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/26 "2006-12-05T16:32:12Z")
> [@Mastriani](#):
>
> > [@Tristan](#):
> >
> > > [@Mastriani](#):
> > >
> > > I fail to see how it is deductively correct when the second postulate of the premise is based upon an undefineable moral value?
> > >
> > > Wouldn’t that make logical failure?
> >
> > ## R \> P P \> E
> >
> > R \> E
> >
> > In the way it is structured, it’s validity is a given, but it’s soundness could be held in question.
>
> Realising that in technicality you are correct, I prefer substance over construct. Thanks Tristan.
No problem, comrade. I was waiting to put my Logic 101 class into use.
---
### Author:  [@Carleas](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Carleas)
#### Post date: [December 5, 2006, 5:21pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/27 "2006-12-05T17:21:05Z")
In technicality, PM is not correct. The statements are not conditionals. If they were, Tristan, your summary would be accurate. But the argument is not
“If it is religion then it is people
If it is people then it is evil
Therefore if it is religion then it is evil.”
The argument presented is much more subtle.
It is more like
C(p,r)…people created religion
E(p)…People are evil
For all{{E(x)&C(x,y)}-\>E(y)}…For all x and y, if x is evil and x created y, then y is evil
|- E(r)…therefor religion is evil
---
### Author:  [@Tristan](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tristan)
#### Post date: [December 5, 2006, 5:46pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/28 "2006-12-05T17:46:04Z")
R implies P
If P then E is established
-so–
R then implies E
It’s what I went from. I haven’t yet covered what you speak of, but by the looks of it, it makes more sense.
---
### Author:  [@Obw](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Obw)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2006, 5:41pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/29 "2006-12-06T17:41:00Z")
> [@Mastriani](#):
>
> I fail to see how it is deductively correct when the second postulate of the premise is based upon an undefineable moral value?
>
> Wouldn’t that make logical failure?
Logic doesn’t care what the content of the premises is. It is deductively valid and you can criticise his premises all you like but his argument/logic is valid. Please see “Introduction to logic” sticky thread in the philosophy forum.
---
### Author:  [@Mastriani](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Mastriani)
#### Post date: [December 7, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/30 "2006-12-07T20:01:40Z")
Sorry Obw, then logic fails to be a useful tool, language is about content, more than semantics. Logic would naturally fall into the latter category, which makes it only useful for mind stroking and ego petting.
Which is of no use at all.
---
### Author:  [@Tristan](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tristan)
#### Post date: [December 7, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/31 "2006-12-07T20:04:08Z")
> [@Mastriani](#):
>
> Sorry Obw, then logic fails to be a useful tool, language is about content, more than semantics. Logic would naturally fall into the latter category, which makes it only useful for mind stroking and ego petting.
>
> Which is of no use at all.
Not at all. There’s [in]validity determined on the structure of argument, and soundness based on the content of the argument.
To be sound, it has to be both valid, and with true premises.
---
### Author:  [@Obw](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Obw)
#### Post date: [December 7, 2006, 8:29pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/32 "2006-12-07T20:29:18Z")
Please see the “Beginners Guide to Logic” sticky in the philosophy forum.
---
### Author:  [@felix\_dakat](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/felix_dakat)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2007, 9:43pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/33 "2007-03-30T21:43:34Z")
> [@Prodigious Mind](#):
>
> I’ve discussed many times the topic of Religion being evil. Many have disagreed because they fail to comprehend what exactly it is I mean. Nonetheless they have made many faulty attempts to disprove me. I am not an atheist, I am not a theist, I am not a crazy weed smoking hinduist or w/e they do. I am simply a person who could care less about what I am, but I am more concerned with the truth that religion is evil. One of my favorite authors, Richard Dawkins talks about this in one of his programs. Richard Dawkins explains many things about how religion is evil because people are evil. But some things are more evil than others. What I mean is, Good doesn’t exist. Things are in our way, and that’s a bad thing. I dont’ care what religion it is. Our like this dr. satantical guy who worships Satan, as if Satan exists. It’s pretty obvious that no supernatural things exist, because if so they would have been seen out of thousands of years, but they have not, thus I really don’t give a rats ass at what you stupid religionist have to say.
>
> I will give kudos to Dr. Satan though because he did agree with my point, he understood what I was saying. And I’ll show it again.
>
> Religion is produced by People.
>
> People are always evil.
>
> Therefore Religion is evil as well.
>
> I studied logic in my math class last year and this is a perfectly logical argument. Consequently, the apparatus of a thing like Religion, is just a big block of concrete in our road to life, and because of this it is EVIL. This world is being run by stupid presidents, stupid leaders, and stupid popes who think there crap smells better than everyone elses.
>
> I would like to put a stop to this who religion thing, there shouldn’t even be a topic on religion if even a few people don’t believe in it. If Religion was true everyone would believe in it. Please, we need to make scientific advancements as the great intelligent journalist Dawkins talks about in his series. If you guys really want to live in a better world, we must stop these ideas in our way, we must go further in are intellect.
Here’s an audio recording of a recent interviews of Dawkins and Geneticist Francis Collins:
[npr.org/templates/story/stor … Id=9180871](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9180871)
---
### Author:  [@Uccisore](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Uccisore)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2007, 11:08pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/34 "2007-03-30T23:08:59Z")
Felix, are you quoting that horrible argument because you think it deserves to be discussed again? I’m just curious. Will check out the link as soon as I’m off work.
---
### Author:  [@felix\_dakat](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/felix_dakat)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2007, 12:02am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/35 "2007-03-31T00:02:09Z")
> [@Uccisore](#):
>
> Felix, are you quoting that horrible argument because you think it deserves to be discussed again? I’m just curious. Will check out the link as soon as I’m off work.
No I just meant to pick up the Dawkins thread where it left off rather than start a new Dawkins thread. Dawkins seems to have mellowed a bit in his conversation with Terry Gross. His main beef with Christianity is over the Intelligent Design issue and resistence to teaching evolution in the schools. He affirms of the mystery of the universe. I found myself agreeing with him on some things. I haven’t had a chance to listen to Collins yet. Maybe I can do that now. If the argument was horrible, maybe these interviews will elevate it.
---
### Author:  [@felix\_dakat](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/felix_dakat)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2007, 12:18am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/36 "2007-03-31T00:18:50Z")
Oh no! Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Project, is proponent of religion/science compatibilism that Twiffy thinks is “crap.”
---
### Author:  [@Sagesound](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Sagesound)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2007, 12:25am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/37 "2007-03-31T00:25:32Z")
03.30.07.2093
> [@felix dakat](#):
>
> No I just meant to pick up the Dawkins thread where it left off rather than start a new Dawkins thread.
You chose this thread out of these other possibles I’ve produced?
[Richard Dawkins Interviews & Root of All Evil Doc](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=153589&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=dawkins)
[Stephen Colbert Vrs. Richard Dawkins](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=154505&highlight=dawkins)
[The Belief In A Thing](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=154662&highlight=dawkins)
[Richard Dawkins Reading “God Delusion” Excerpts](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=154584&highlight=dawkins)
…oh, and a favorite of mine…
[[size=200]Ted Haggard EXPOSED![/size]](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=153805&highlight=dawkins)
> [@Prodigious Mind](#):
>
> I am not an atheist…
…and yet…
> [@Prodigious Mind](#):
>
> It’s pretty obvious that no supernatural things exist, because if so they would have been seen out of thousands of years, but they have not, thus I really don’t give a rats ass at what you stupid religionist have to say.
If he’s not an atheist, he’s [size=125]really[/size] close.
---
### Author:  [@felix\_dakat](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/felix_dakat)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2007, 12:47am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/38 "2007-03-31T00:47:58Z")
It has a more succinctly relevant title: Dawkins and Religion. Don’t you think?
---
### Author:  [@Sagesound](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Sagesound)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2007, 1:28am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/39 "2007-03-31T01:28:56Z")
03.30.07.2095
> [@felix dakat](#):
>
> It has a more succinctly relevant title: Dawkins and Religion. Don’t you think?
No, I don’t. The title alludes to a different topic than the one that was actually presented. The main case issued in this thread is that “religion is evil”, while only briefly mentioning the kind Oxford professor. If this thread really were about Dawkins and religion; exclusively, we would see something wholly regarding his latest book.
Oh yeah, and Dawkins “pwned” Collins.
---
### Author:  [@felix\_dakat](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/felix_dakat)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2007, 1:33am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613/40 "2007-03-31T01:33:13Z")
> [@Sagesound](#):
>
> 03.30.07.2095
>
> > [@felix dakat](#):
> >
> > It has a more succinctly relevant title: Dawkins and Religion. Don’t you think?
>
> No, I don’t. The title alludes to a different topic than the one that was actually presented. The main case issued in this thread is that “religion is evil”, while only briefly mentioning the kind Oxford professor. If this thread really were about Dawkins and religion; exclusively, we would see something wholly regarding his latest book.
>
> Oh yeah, and Dawkins “pwned” Collins.
I’m referring to the title not the discussion. How do you figure Dawkins pwned Collins? I didn’t know it was a debate. You’re so competitive.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dawkins-and-religion/14613.md?page=3)