How many of you like Dawkins

[reggieM]

Because any reasonable person can go and review the evidence and will come to the exact same conclusions.

Only an unreasonable person could disagree with the findings of the “experts”?

The “evidence” is interpreted by the experts to supposedly have some meaning.

Evolutionists themselves do not agree with each others’ conclusions, so it is not merely something that “any reasonable person” can reach the “exact same conclusion on”.

 

[tuviskazinai]

I have to say that I am not at all a fan of Dawkins – I think he is a pretty worthless philosopher, for the reasons many on this thread have already posted. (Though I don’t have anything against his voice. )

The thing that bothers me most about him is his persistent use of the word “reason” to describe what he is doing. He talks all the time about how science is the best defender of reason in the world…and yet I honestly don’t even think he knows what the word means. If he made all his dumb mistakes without giving “reason” a bad name in the process, I probably wouldn’t mind so much!

Whenever he talks about “reason” he equates it with having indisputable scientific evidence. He then opposes it to “faith,” which he regards as belief without evidence. But “reason” is in between the two things he describes. I remember reading a nice article by Fr. Giussani, or else someone in his Communion and Liberation circle, which explained that reason is the relation between human experience and the faith that that experience allows us to have. Of course we need to be attentive to scientific fact, and Christians who ignore scientific findings are not properly informing their faith. But we also need to be attentive to “invisible” truths…such as what brings us happiness in the world, the longing we have for love, the encounters we have with beauty, etc.

And then reason is what says, ok, based on all of this – visible and invisible – here are the conclusions I can draw about the way the world works…which I can then put my faith in. Scientists use reason all the time: to take an ultra-simple example, they see that the sun has risen every day, and say that barring any unforeseen events, the sun will rise tomorrow. This is a proposition based both on visible experience and the invisible laws of physics, and yet it is reason that allows us to draw an invisible link between these things and confidence in a future event which we have not yet experienced.

So when Dawkins says, “Ok, you believe in a God for which you have no proof – you are choosing faith over reason,” he is confusing reason with evidence. I know this is all 2nd grade theology, but it’s just shocking that a scientist like Dawkins who presumes to write “philosophy” just doesn’t get it. It’s particularly saddening because it keeps him from realizing that the Church – with its rich history of philosophy, its timeless willingness to explain in detail everything it believes, and its counter-cultural opposition to nihilism – is perhaps the leading advocate of the efficacy of “reason” in the world!

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Angels_Unaware]

I was responding to the insinuation that Dawkins statement that some aspects of evolution are “counter-intuitive” in any way lend credence to the idea that the world was “designed” by a force other than natural selection.

And your response seemed to be a categorical denial that the apperance of design could support the assertion that there is a design.

The appearance of design does not prove the existence of design, but it most certainly does not disprove design.

The fact that you would like to argue that what we perceive as “design” in nature is in fact “badly designed”, thus only explainable by random processes is nothing except your own argument. Or, actually, Dawkins argument.

No. There are no “dogmatic assertions” in evolution. No one accepts evolution as the fact that it is because Dawkins (or some famous scientist) says so. It is accepted on the weight of its evidence.

There are dogmatic assertions in Atheism.

There are philosphical assumptions that are inherent to studying biology from a “Darwinian” perspective. One philosophical assumption is that everything observed is entirely reduceable to hydrogen, for example, and was “built” through time and chance.

Right? I mean, my biology and physics were taken at the undergraduate level, so I am not a scientist, but that’s pretty basic.

There are some who argue that this paradigm is losing some of its explanatory power in some cases as the science accumulates. Behe, for example. My point was not to go there, but to say, there is a confusion that occurs with Dawkins, and with atheism.

Many make this error in believing that *just because *we see creative processes that occur over time, (presumably by chance, though nobody can ever know whether or not the Universe is inherently meaningful or meaningless) then therefore it is impossible to assign purpose or higher intelligence to the natural world.

That is untrue. I believe it is entirely false that to accept evolutionary principles is to necessarily deny the existence of purpose or higher consciousness in the Universe.

Now, if you are not inclined to study the massive amounts of evidence for evolution (practically everything we have ever learned about life supports common ancestry), we have set up bodies of experts that review each other’s findings based on evidence.

That’s why a layman can accept findings that come through this peer-review process, and it is not an act of faith in the slightest. Because any reasonable person can go and review the evidence and will come to the exact same conclusions.

What does the peer-review process have to do with any of this?

Who is questioning the existence of Evolution? I am certainly not.

 

[reggieM]

You just HAD to include some kind of non-RC bashing in an otherwise intelligent response. Sad, and pathetic

With a little reflection … yes, you’re right. That point didn’t add anything to the response. It was an off-handed and unnecessary comment. My apologies.

 

[MegaTherion]

The evolutionary-scientist, Francis S. Collins, disagrees with you. As is common, the opinion of one evolutionist conflicts with that of another.

Collins’ field of expertise doesn’t mean that he knows much about other fields. The fact that his definition of atheism is at odds with that used by most modern atheists has nothing to do with his accepting of evolution.

I think you should post your scientific credentials at this point, given that Darwinian evolutionists like to claim that anyone who is not a biologist (especially “molecular biologist”) who has recently (no more than 3 years ago) published peer reviewed papers in approved scientific journals, is “qualified” to offer opinions on evolution. Such persons “lack credibility”.

So – let’s hear your credentials and links to peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary theory.

I certainly would not be qualified to publish papers on the subject, nor would I be qualified to overturn the findings of nearly every single biologist on the earth.

But, as a layman who has some basic understanding of the method and evidence involved, I am capable of discussing some aspects of evolution.

Evolutionists themselves do not agree with each others’ conclusions, so it is not merely something that “any reasonable person” can reach the “exact same conclusion on”.

As in any scientific field, evolution is a living field in which multiple hypotheses often compete. Scientists certainly don’t know everything about evolution, and there is naturally some debate about some of the finer points (as in every scientific field), but scientists agree on so much about evolution that your claim that they “do not agree with each others’ concusions” is disingenuous.

The vast, vast majority of evolutionary theory has the approval of nearly every biologist on earth.

 

[Nebogipfel]

I read The God Delusion about a year after I realized I was an atheist. It’s a good book, but not a great one. It doesn’t present any new arguments against the existence of God, a god or gods - but then Dawkins never claims to be doing that. From my reading of it, Dawkins is explaining why he doesn’t believe in God, a god or gods, and why he thinks religion is a bad thing for society.

I have to say, I find his arguments very reasonable, but there’s nothing there which I hadn’t already figured out for myself. He does put it more eloquently than I could, though.

As for being arrogant; well, he certainly has no time for religious sensibilities, and he’s not afraid to say so. He’s a human being. So sue him I find the rhetorical aggressivness he displays towards religious folk is mild compared to the rhetorical aggressiveness that some religious folk display towards atheists.

I think one misconception that religious people have about The God Delusion, is that it’s a book railing against God. It isn’t. Dawkins doesn’t care about God, because Dawkins doesn’t believe that God exists. What he certainly *is *concerned about, is the influence that people who do believe in God, a god or gods, have on society.

 

[williamric]

As for being arrogant; well, he certainly has no time for religious sensibilities, and he’s not afraid to say so. He’s a human being. So sue him I find the rhetorical aggressivness he displays towards religious folk is mild compared to the rhetorical aggressiveness that some religious folk display towards atheists.

Oh so he can act like he wants because he doesn’t have time for “religious sensibilities” ? I’m a human being as well, and I treat peoples belief systems with respect and dignity…Just because he thinks he’s better then everyone else doesn’t excuse him from practicing common manners…

I think one misconception that religious people have about The God Delusion, is that it’s a book railing against God. It isn’t. Dawkins doesn’t care about God, because Dawkins doesn’t believe that God exists. What he certainly *is *concerned about, is the influence that people who do believe in God, a god or gods, have on society.

lol, Dawkins doesn’t care about G-d??? You’re talking semantics here, whether or not Dawkins believes in G-d is irrelevant… You don’t call a book “the God Delusion” if you aren’t trying to push something

 

[williamric]

It is counter-intuitive.
**
It’s also counter-intuitive to think that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around.**

In what way?

 

[Nebogipfel]

Oh so he can act like he wants because he doesn’t have time for “religious sensibilities” ? I’m a human being as well, and I treat peoples belief systems with respect and dignity…

For my money, Dawkins can say whatever he likes about people’s religious beliefs, just as religious people can say whatever they like about atheists, regardless of whether atheists are offended by what they say. And in my experience, there are plenty of religious people who do say whatever they like about atheists, regardless of whether atheists are offended by what they say.

What is it that Dawkins says that you find offensive?

What about the belief systems which do not deserve to be treated with respect and dignity? I see no reason to treat the beliefs of, say, the Taliban with any respect, although I would certainly respect their right to hold and express whatever religious beliefs they see fit.

Just because he thinks he’s better then everyone else doesn’t excuse him from practicing common manners…

Sorry, where does Dawkins claim to be “better than everyone else”? He is explaining why he thinks that people who believe they know what God wants are almost certainly mistaken in that belief. If that is “rude and arrogant”, then it pales into insignificance next to the rudeness and arrogance with which some religious people behave.

If you are interested in his views on common manners in religious discourse, you might be interested in his essay Time To Stand Up, in A Devil’s Chaplain.

lol, Dawkins doesn’t care about G-d???

No he doesn’t. He’s an atheist. Why would he care about the opinions of entity he does not believe exists?

You’re talking semantics here, whether or not Dawkins believes in G-d is irrelevant… You don’t call a book “the God Delusion” if you aren’t trying to push something

This is not semantics; I think it’s actually the central point of the book. Dawkins doesn’t blame God for the mess in the Middle East, or the troubles in Northern Ireland, or the treatment of women as second-class citizens in certain theocratic societies. He blames people who believe in God. Perhaps that should be some people who believe in God, but nonetheless, it is certainly a distinction which makes a difference.

(I should point out that I have no brief to defend Richard Dawkins, and I’m speaking purely for myself here. Beside, Dawkins is quite capable of defending himself ).

 

[williamric]

For my money, Dawkins can say whatever he likes about people’s religious beliefs, just as religious people can say whatever they like about atheists, regardless of whether atheists are offended by what they say. And in my experience, there are plenty of religious people who do say whatever they like about atheists, regardless of whether atheists are offended by what they say.

What is it that Dawkins says that you find offensive?

What about the belief systems which do not deserve to be treated with respect and dignity? I see no reason to treat the beliefs of, say, the Taliban with any respect, although I would certainly respect their right to hold and express whatever religious beliefs they see fit.

This is not about a specific thing that Dawkins has done…He has never offended me. This is purely about the argument you used, it is common decency to respect peoples beliefs. Regardless of whether the person is Christian or Atheist the standard is the same, and both Richard Dawkins and myself should act in a respectful and dignified manner…

Sorry, where does Dawkins claim to be “better than everyone else”? He is explaining why he thinks that people who believe they know what God wants are almost certainly mistaken in that belief. If that is “rude and arrogant”, then it pales into insignificance next to the rudeness and arrogance with which some religious people behave.

Yeah, I wasn’t really trying to specifically refer to how Dawkins acts, I used “he thinks he’s better then everyone else” just to show my point, not to specifically criticise him…

No he doesn’t. He’s an atheist. Why would he care about the opinions of entity he does not believe exists?

Ask him

This is not semantics; I think it’s actually the central point of the book. Dawkins doesn’t blame God for the mess in the Middle East, or the troubles in Northern Ireland, or the treatment of women as second-class citizens in certain theocratic societies. He blames people who believe in God. Perhaps that should be some people who believe in God, but nonetheless, it is certainly a distinction which makes a difference.

It makes no difference whatsoever, since, Dawkins never once in the book can statiscally (or conclusively) attribute violence to religious belief. Merely citing examples of where religion leads to violence does not prove an irregular positive correlation between religion and violence… Most Atheists I know rejected this argument immediately…

(I should point out that I have no brief to defend Rich
ard Dawkins, and I’m speaking purely for myself here. Beside, Dawkins is quite capable of defending himself ).

Yeah, thats fine, I wasn’t very clear or specific in my post. I was really just trying to say that you should’t try justify poor behaviour (as a principle) for superficial reasons…

 

[Nebogipfel]

This is not about a specific thing that Dawkins has done…He has never offended me. This is purely about the argument you used, it is common decency to respect peoples beliefs.

Regardless of whether the person is Christian or Atheist the standard is the same, and both Richard Dawkins and myself should act in a respectful and dignified manner…

I would say that it everyone’s beliefs are entitled to respect, until they prove otherwise. I see no reason to respect, for instance, the belief that girls and women should not go to school, because God as ordained that the *only *role for women in society is as wives, mothers and homemakers.

Yeah, I wasn’t really trying to specifically refer to how Dawkins acts, I used “he thinks he’s better then everyone else” just to show my point, not to specifically criticise him…

So when you said “he thinks he’s better than everyone else”, you didn’t actually mean that he thinks he’s better than everyone else? That’s… confusing.

It makes no difference whatsoever, since, Dawkins never once in the book can statiscally (or conclusively) attribute violence to religious belief. Merely citing examples of where religion leads to violence does not prove an irregular positive correlation between religion and violence… Most Atheists I know rejected this argument immediately…

Well, the purpetrators of 9/11 seemed to be quite clear that their motivation was primarily to act in defence of their religion. So did the 7/7 bombers. The Israeli settlers are there because they believe God told their ancestors that they could live on that particular bit of ground, and so the people who happened to be living their now can take a hike. Hamas seem to be motivated by a desire to drive the Jews away from one of Islam’s holy places, plus just a desire to kill and hurt as many Israelis as possible. The only way of telling apart the factions in Northern Ireland is by what kind of church they go to. The Taliban demolished those ancient Buddah statues precisely because they considered them un-Islamic. The history of Europe is full of examples where one group of religious people have persecuted another group of religious people over interpretations of the same text.

And so on.

Religion may not be the only issue here, but it’s a fundamentally and inextricably linked to all these conflicts. It’s part of the problem, not part of the solution, and that’s the point Dawkins is making in his book.

OK, rant over. Sorry about the chewed carpets…

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Religion may not be the only issue here, but it’s a fundamentally and inextricably linked to all these conflicts. It’s part of the problem, not part of the solution, and that’s the point Dawkins is making in his book.

OK, rant over. Sorry about the chewed carpets…

I would suggest there is no truth to this statement whatsoever, and rather than religion being part of the problem, people are the whole of the problem.

It is entirely disingenuous to point such a narrow and pointed finger at religion in a fit of implied superiority when we all have the same history books.

There was this modern group of people that followed a dictator with paranoid delusions, and they killed about 6 million people who were part of one ethnic group, and millions of other kinds of people, all with the support and blessing of the government and their allies. They did so in these bizarre and cruel ways. There have been some examples of similar atrocities in modern times, but not many, and not on this scale. I think it is probably fair to say that their social organization and group belief system was the very worst one imaginable. It is hard to put a definition of “worst”, but regardless, they were pretty bad.

What were their beliefs about God?

According to my history books, Atheist societies have failed to alleviate the social atrocities you mention when given a free reign.

 

[LutheranDK]

With a little reflection … yes, you’re right. That point didn’t add anything to the response. It was an off-handed and unnecessary comment. My apologies.

Accepted

 

[Mijoy2]

Honey, try checking it out before you make any assumptions.

I checked out the Converts Corner.

I didn’t read them all but I scanned the first 20 or so. Of the ones I read there was not a single devout Catholic who this “brilliant” man convinced.

It was quite a sad read actually. Dawkins appears quite successful in persuading the very young along with others who never knew thier faith to begin with and (from reading thier little blurbs) appear to have been looking for a way out of believing.

If the man were truly brilliant, he’d understand and have sympathy for the concept of the joy people aquire when they truly embrace thier faith. However he doesn’t consider that angle.

Frankly, what is too like about him totally escapes me.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

I spent a considerable time on this forum, probably the worst Atheist forum I ever went on… The discussion was ridiculously immature…

You went onto the forum? Well, I checked it out and they seem pretty decent. Kind of like this forum, but a little more… formal.

Maybe it depended on the threads I saw… either that or you were upfront about your faith (assuming you are Catholic) and they didn’t take to kindly to that.

Ironically Yours.

 

[williamric]

You went onto the forum? Well, I checked it out and they seem pretty decent. Kind of like this forum, but a little more… formal.

Maybe it depended on the threads I saw… either that or you were upfront about your faith (assuming you are Catholic) and they didn’t take to kindly to that.

Ironically Yours.

It used to post their about 18 months ago… It was nothing about me being upfront about my faith, it was people posting the most ridiculous and badly thought out rubbish

 

[williamric]

I would say that it everyone’s beliefs are entitled to respect, until they prove otherwise. I see no reason to respect, for instance, the belief that girls and women should not go to school, because God as ordained that the *only *role for women in society is as wives, mothers and homemakers.

Yeah, but…

1. Thats your subjective opinion
2. Some woman prefer that place
3. I was talking in generalities, therefore, obviously you can don’t have to have respect for a religion that teaches that dropping nukes on thrid-world countires is acceptable…however, at the same time you don’t have to agree with people who might think that woman shouldbe at home (that doesn’t make them bad people) and it certainly doesn’t give us the right to dis-respect them…

So when you said “he thinks he’s better than everyone else”, you didn’t actually mean that he thinks he’s better than everyone else? That’s… confusing.

Yeah, as I said, I wasn’t commenting on Dawkins but on the argument you used to justify behaviour…That comment was just their to show my point… you could change it for anything, like “just because he thinks he is cleverer then christians”, or “just because he thinks he’s more right then Christian” etc etc

Well, the purpetrators of 9/11 seemed to be quite clear that their motivation was primarily to act in defence of their religion. So did the 7/7 bombers. The Israeli settlers are there because they believe God told their ancestors that they could live on that particular bit of ground, and so the people who happened to be living their now can take a hike. Hamas seem to be motivated by a desire to drive the Jews away from one of Islam’s holy places, plus just a desire to kill and hurt as many Israelis as possible. The only way of telling apart the factions in Northern Ireland is by what kind of church they go to. The Taliban demolished those ancient Buddah statues precisely because they considered them un-Islamic. The history of Europe is full of examples where one group of religious people have persecuted another group of religious people over interpretations of the same text.

Again, does this prove an unusual correlation between religion and violence… Can you look through human history and build a significant correlation? Citing examples of religious violence is about as useful as me citing examples of Atheist violence, ie not useful at all…

Humanity has always had a violent past, throughout history throughout the different cultures (secular or religious), to imply that religion is “the root of all evil”, or “part of the problem” is begging the question, and using history to say what you want history to say… Religion can be linked to pretty much everytihng that has happened over the last 500 years… why ?? Because our cultures have been almost completely religious during this period…

I know you’re going to use the “but religious people kill in the name of religion” argument but this argument is irrelevant…

People will always look for justification for their actions, like the 9/11 terrorists use religion as a justification, however this doesn’t mean that religion actually justifies their actions. The vast majority of the Muslims in the world are not violent, and do not agree with the actions of these people… Then you take something like Atheist Russia in 1940, I don’t blame Atheism for the killing in Russia because I believe the vast majority of the Atheists probably weren’t that violent… But the bottomline is that the top brass of Russia were violent. Atheists, and you know what? They might not have killed in the name of Atheism but their Atheism certainly allowed them to need no justifcation for their actions. Something which Dawkins conveniently doesn;t explore.

I can concede that religious people have killed in the name of religion, I can concede that religious people have committed atrocities, but I will never concede that this is specifically because they were religious, because nothing in history justifies that.

Regards,
William

P.S. Isreal is a secular state
P.P.S. What gives you the right to own your country/land? Do you think that throughout the ages men have been having lovely discussion over tea and gracefully and fairly spreading the land between all the people in the world?

 

[Nebogipfel]

Hi , Angels Unaware and Williamric,

I did admit I was ranting.

I can see I give the impression that I regard all religious people as wannabee 9/11 hijackers. I do not, and I apologise for giving that impression.

I will certainly concede that the bare fact that someone believes in God is not the problem, nor is the bare fact that someone follows a particular religious tradition.

What I do think is a problem, is the fact that religious belief is very often associated with an authoritarian view of the world; that is, the mindset that certain things must be true, because a particular religious authority has said so, and this authority must not be questioned, or at least only insofar as one concludes that this authority is correct.

From where I’m standing many religions - certainly the Judeo-Christian ones - are deeply intertwined with this view. Even atheists can succumb to it - I would actually say that the cult of Stalin in the USSR was a kind of religion. I’m sure you would say that if Stalinism was a religion, it was a false and twisted one, and a terrible demonstration of what happens when you replace God with man.

Perhaps I can sum up my point of view like this:

I would guess that your objection to Stalinism is that it replaces worship of God with worship of a man. My objection to Stalinism, Christianity, Islam, and any other religion, is that it worships at all.

I hope I can show that I’m not just ranting…

I’m not sure if we’re still talking about whether we like Dawkins or not…

 

[Angels_Unaware]

be true, because a particular religious authority has said so, and this authority must not be questioned, or at least only insofar as one concludes that this authority is correct…

I agree with you. I don’t like that kind of mindset either, whatever the belief system behind it.

This is why when I try to explain my take on Christianity to other people I say it’s not all about a book, it’s about a person. I don’t think in the ultimate scheme of things we can rely on dogma, (even though the Church has dogma), and from my perspective, I rely on the person of Jesus and what he represents to me. He modeled truth, love, and sacrifice of the temporary earthly life for eternal life, and this Person is what Christianity is to me.

And yet, I have no problem submitting to the authority of the Church. Even though that might seem to be a contadiction, it isn’t really. I submit to the authority of the Church out of respect and love for God, not because I think the Church is probably got the right intepretation right now about every single thing. I think the Church is pretty good, compared to other religions, obviously or I wouldn’t align myself with it, and I think that heavenly authority has been given to it.

Having said that, I wouldn’t go on a crusade and torture people, even though the Church told me to. But I certainly do submit as far as my personal conscience allows, in a symbolic way. My submission is symbolic of submission to God.

 

[reggieM]

I will certainly concede that the bare fact that someone believes in God is not the problem, nor is the bare fact that someone follows a particular religious tradition.

That is an important point because it distinguishes your view (in a good way) from the sweeping condemnations of Richard Dawkins and other who claim that all religion is evil.

I would guess that your objection to Stalinism is that it replaces worship of God with worship of a man. My objection to Stalinism, Christianity, Islam, and any other religion, is that it worships at all.

One Catholic opinion that I’ve seen (not an official doctrine or even widespread, but just a proposal) is that mankind was created to worship. Each human being has the potential to love and serve to a high degree – and that love and service is oriented to “an Other”.

The “Other” is greater than the human individual and will often require obedience in the process of loving and serving.

This is a “higher power” sometimes called.

So, yes – Stalinism served that role as “the Other” – generating some sincere love, service and obedience. The State is greater than the individual and is “worshipped” with love and sacrifice.

But what if we say “get rid of all worship”?

The idea is, human beings will eventually be oriented to some “higher power”. If not God, not the Stalinist or Nazi state, not a guru or idol … then the only option is “self”.

The person’s own self becomes the highest authority which is loved, obeyed and offered sacrifice. There is nothing higher, no higher authority, nothing that commands reverence beyond ones own self.

So, worship remains – it is just focused in a different direction.

To eliminate worship from the human experience is to deny or try to destroy the highest form of love which humans are capable of.