I think the logic and moral ideas in the book are not just against gods, but he even states that we ourselves have no spirit or soul of our own in any way that isn't metaphorical. Basically, he argues against not only gods and goddesses, but the very idea of a spiritual realm in general.

Yeah, no respected thinker alive supports dualism anymore.

I know this can be a touchy subject for people, so apologies in advance if I offend anyone.

Liquidwave-

I haven't read the God Delusion, but regardless of whether it is a good read, a biologist just doesn't have the credentials to write a proper book on a philosophical topic. I guess anyone who thinks philosophical thoughts might think himself a philosopher, when that is not necessarily the case. Would you go to an economist to learn about steam engines? If you like this book, I highly recommend David Hume's Concerning Natural Religion. It may have been written a few hundred years ago, but it's surprisingly accessible and relevant. Hume was a great writer, so don't think that you'll be reading boring academic stuff.

pwt-

Ehh, I don't know. I was just hoping I could throw that out there, like one would say "astronomers say X," where X is something that is beyond someone's individual reach of verifying but we can believe it as true because scientists say it. Maybe that doesn't work so well for philosophical topics, heh.

As for the actual topic of dualism, I have to clarify a few things so that you know what it is I am arguing against. The kind of dualism Dawkins is likely speaking out against is the kind where the mind and the material are distinct, where space, time, and motion is only applicable to the material and thinking is only applicable to the mind. I'm guessing he's also against the possible implications that soul/spirit might have. Historically, spirit/soul and mind have been used interchangeably. However, spirit has some religious connotations, from immortality to some really weird shit, like invisible people with wings and forked tongues.

Again, I haven't read the book, so I might be wrong here.

So here are the problems that I can't get past with dualism:

A) If the mind and the material are distinct, how does the mind affect matter? Or does matter affect mind? Descartes said that it was through the brain (specifically, the pineal gland, but that is unimportant) that mind and matter interacted, and that mind affected matter perhaps similar to how gravity affects objects. But the brain is still material, and the mind is still immaterial. He's only changed the scale of the problem from material in general to a specific material. How can it be that something spatial is relating to something thinking?

B) Wittgenstein said that even when we are thinking our innermost, most spiritual thoughts, we must use language, language that is inextricably tied to body and to culture. Language here doesn't have to mean full, complete sentences and commonly used words. It's the way our minds form distinctions, relations, and conceptions. And so, our spiritual thoughts are tied to the material world.

C) Poke your eyes out, no more vision. Stab your eardrums, no more hearing. Damage your brain a certain way, no more short-term memory. Damage it another way, and you lose linguistic capabilities. And so forth. If you cut out all the physical processes that create your conscious experience, what's left? What reason do you have to believe that you are not your body?

Of course, rejecting this kind of dualism doesn't help to explain the wonder of our consciousness. How is it that we are conscious beings? To quote Jeff Mangum, "Can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all!"

Personally, I stop at the wonder and leave the explanations up to people smarter than me, the neuroscientists, philosophers, cognitive scientists, etc. If you like this sort of topic, though, philosophy of mind might be for you.

I'm familiar with the premise of that book, although I've never read it. For what it's worth, I would say that if he had more brain damage, he would be even less conscious.

I won't defend the Darwinists who speak beyond their own field (ie, biology). I don't disagree with you in your personal view on mind/matter (don't completely agree either), but I just wanted to shed some light as to why Dawkins might be rejecting the soul, as it seemed completely absurd to you. The conception of the soul that he is rejecting might not be the same conception of the soul that you accept. He might be rejecting soul X, while you accept soul Y, but because the variables aren't explicit, some confusion might arise.

Darwinian philosophers, if they can be called that, tend to think in generalizations of religion or criticize those who can't explain their gods when they can't explain their own.

Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean that you have any grounds for explaining it. With some questions, the only intellectually honest answer is "I don't know."

Also, how can the Darwinian community get mad at people for attributing evolution to gods(Dawkins attacks that stuff greatly in the God Delusion) when Darwin himself was a self proclaimed Agnostic in his journals?

Because attributing evolution to gods does nothing to advance our knowledge or understanding of why things are the way they are. In fact, accepting such a claim without empirical evidence can even hinder our advances. It could blur the line between what constitutes knowledge or put the scientific community at the mercy of a religious majority, and religion has no place in science.

Darwin's personal beliefs have nothing to do with the merit of his scientific ideas. When scientists discuss Darwinism, they are discussing the scientific ideas that Darwin came up with, independent of his character as a whole. The term 'Darwinism' is just an honorary label for the ideas, but nothing more. To criticize scientists' reactions to the religious based on Darwin's personal beliefs is a red herring fallacy. Not to mention, just because Darwin was agnostic does not mean that he would in any way have accepted evolution as an effect of some divine power. It simply means that he viewed the existence of divinity as fundamentally unknowable, nothing more.

How could you say religion has no place in science to someone who feels that the proof of God is in the universe itself.

A) God is the reason for the universe.
B) The universe exists.
C) God exists.

If a person thinks that the universe is proof of God, then he is falling prey to circular reasoning.

Also, isn't the stance that there are no gods or spiritual realms a form of religious thought.

Non. Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion.

So you're a pantheist then? I thought you were Muslim?

Sorry, you're no longer coherent to me. I guess this is the end of this conversation.