Está en la página 1de 1

Carson Adams Why There Almost Certainly Is No God by Richard Dawkins In Why There Almost Certainly Is No God by Richard

Dawkins, he generally argues that many Americans irrationally believe in a god that will hinder scientific and cultural progress. More specifically, he argues that an irrational belief in a god, especially the Christian ideology that now dominates this once secular nation that stood as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment not only perpetuates a disbelief in evolution, what he claims to be a fundamental scientific fact in these modern times, but also hinders the ability of American politicians and citizens to view goals in a long-term way as many of them are eager for imminent destruction (the signs of the Second Coming of Christ) or global war (Armageddon). Dawkins supporting arguments are perhaps more important than his larger goal in that they outline his underlying ideology; We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. In this passage, Dawkins is invoking Ockhams Razor, that because a belief in deity is fundamentally and perhaps so infinitely more complicated than an observation based explanation that although we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable. Dawkins belief, with respect to his previous criticisms of the effects of Christian fundamentalism and even idle Christianity, is that a belief in god is inherently illogical, therefore many actions made via this ideology will follow the same illogical processes. Dawkins is primarily correct in his logical and wholly scientific assessment of the existence of a god or deity, and he properly applies Ockhams Razor. However, his extension of irrationality in belief to irrationality in action is poorly executed. He provides a few examples of how intelligent design education in schools has been dangerous, and implies that those politicians that believe that the worlds end is imminent will provide incomplete or short term solutions to pressing, morally significant issues. While there is a clear path of causation between this possible perpetrator and the ills, it doesnt fully explicate the frequency of such damages. In clearer language, despite the ease in which religious leaders and teachers could plan poorly based on their beliefs, they will not necessarily allow religious bias to affect their political decisions. Dawkins argument for this assumes something that is intuitively well accepted though; unconscious bias affects outlook, and prejudiced outlook that does not reflect information from reality, the universe we exist in, affects decisions often unrealistically. Dawkins argument is ideologically sound, however, and his concerns are extremely real and rely on basic human failings as the basis for possible consequence. In conclusion, Dawkins real proposition seems more important and subsequently dominates the body of the article. His scientifically disciplined examination of the existence of a god reflects his logical judgement, and he intuitively understands that if a larger portion of the population understood the irrationality of their belief in some higher diety, better decisions would be made in education, politics, and in the lives of individuals.

También podría gustarte