Richard Dawkins sums up religion

spudbynight · 9 Dec 2013 at 12:10

Skunkworks said:
Which god, and what was the reasoning process that led you there?

I believe in the Christian God.

The reasoning process that led me there involved weighing up the information to hand. I have read the works of leading atheists and also writings of learned theologians and philosophers.

The conclusion I reached was a belief in God. You may not agree with the conclusion I came to however I hope you can accept that I gave due thought to the matter.

If you are interested in the topic I would strongly advise reading Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. There is an excellent book available on the Summa which I would also recommend :

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/1851686908

That is an excellent beginners guide to the Summa Theologica and doesn't assume a high level of prior knowledge.

Jack Bauer · 9 Dec 2013 at 12:12

koolpc said:
Point me to 100% proof that we came from apes? Show me.

koolpc said:
Of course! We eat bananas too! Should have guessed.

Seriously though, where is the evidence that we are related to apes? 100% evidence?

I don't need evidence for my belief in God even though, for me, there is masses of evidence all around us in everyday life. Scripture, saints etc etc. things you don't believe in.

Reading back I think I should clarify. I don't mean in an aggressive way, I am referring to post like those above where an answer is not given to defend your point. Most replies have been trying to disprove evolution, rather than prove your own beliefs. Also I think I may be giving you some credit for kedges responses :rolleyes:

Would still like an answer to this question,

Jack Bauer said:
Show me any evidence that we were created in a day...

elmarko · 9 Dec 2013 at 12:26

spudbynight said:
I believe in the Christian God.

The reasoning process that led me there involved weighing up the information to hand. I have read the works of leading atheists and also writings of learned theologians and philosophers.

The conclusion I reached was a belief in God. You may not agree with the conclusion I came to however I hope you can accept that I gave due thought to the matter.

If you are interested in the topic I would strongly advise reading Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas.

I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on subjects to which evidence does exist (obviously the existence a god/gods isn't a scientific concept which can be 'disproved').

I mean, on evolution - the age of the existing universe - do you agree with what science has discovered on these matters & reserve faith for the unknowable?.

As obviously you don't have to deny what we know in science to believe in a deity, but some elements of certain religions do have that aspect (which some ascribe to, others ignore).

Castiel · 9 Dec 2013 at 12:36

spudbynight said:
I am familiar with the letter in question that refers to Canon 1367. This carries a automatic excommunication (latae sententiae). This refers to abuse of the host. There is a linked incident at a Mass where the host was allegedly given to a dog.

Also in the same letter are two other canonical offences. Reynolds is accused of heresy (Canon 751) and speaking publicly against church teaching (Canon 1369)

Which is precisely what I said....it was the Violation of the Eucharist which led to the Excommunication rather than his views on the role of women or homosexuality that you initially suggested.

spudbynight said:
This excommunication jars with the idea of a Pope ignoring doctrine as has been suggested by the secular media.

I did not even suggest the Pope ignored or intended to ignore Doctrine...but promote a more liberal interpretation of that Doctrine, this I think is clear in the evidence I presented.

Zethor · 9 Dec 2013 at 12:39

spudbynight said:
I believe in the Christian God.

The reasoning process that led me there involved weighing up the information to hand. I have read the works of leading atheists and also writings of learned theologians and philosophers.

The conclusion I reached was a belief in God. You may not agree with the conclusion I came to however I hope you can accept that I gave due thought to the matter.

If you are interested in the topic I would strongly advise reading Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. There is an excellent book available on the Summa which I would also recommend :

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/1851686908

That is an excellent beginners guide to the Summa Theologica and doesn't assume a high level of prior knowledge.

Which Christian God? There are millions of them, don't you mean you believe in a personal Creator?

Since you mentioned Summa Theologica, do you consider atheism a worse sin than, say, genocide?

koolpc · 9 Dec 2013 at 12:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Bauer
Show me any evidence that we were created in a day...

As you very well know, there is no scientific evidence. For me, which you all find very hard to comprehend, it all comes downt to faith and a strong belief in God. Scripture is very important. The word of God is very important. There would be no such thing as belief in God if you didn't, as a Christian, believe in the 'word' of God.

I am not looking for scientific proof or evidence. I don't need that for beliefs or faith. Some call it blind faith. Well, that's what a true Christian is meant to have. Utter faith in God. Unquestionable faith in God. One could never do this if one didn't believe in God.

Castiel · 9 Dec 2013 at 12:42

Zethor said:
Which Christian God? There are millions of them

There are? Who might some of them be?

koolpc · 9 Dec 2013 at 12:44

Zethor said:
Which Christian God? There are millions of them, don't you mean you believe in a personal Creator?

Since you mentioned Summa Theologica, do you consider atheism a worse sin than, say, genocide?

There aren't millions of Christian Gods! Lots of different Christian denominations but they all believe in the one God!

spudbynight · 9 Dec 2013 at 12:54

Zethor said:
Which Christian God? There are millions of them, don't you mean you believe in a personal Creator?

Since you mentioned Summa Theologica, do you consider atheism a worse sin than, say, genocide?

I can't take your first question seriously. Am I supposed to take the second one?

Hades · 9 Dec 2013 at 13:02

Although I answered "no" at the beginning of the thread I do consider myself more of an agnostic than a straight atheist. I just can't see any evidence for a god right now but if I saw some then I would perhaps change my views.

However as I get older I am getting more spiritual and, frankly, in awe at how the universe can be here. The problem with that is I would be equally in awe whether it were a god or whether it simply "came into being without assistance". I had a discussion with my kids recently who asked how something can appear out of nothing. The best analogy that I could come up with was the following:

* Consider the number 1 and consider an equal and opposite number -1. Both "exist" but when added together they are zero. So if you think of that in reverse; the number 1 and -1 can literally come out of zero or nothing. Both of those states can exist at the same time and both are equally valid.

elmarko · 9 Dec 2013 at 13:13

For me, adding god to explain how the universe came into being does nothing to solve the problem - as the next logical question is "where did god come from?", to which the usual reply is - "god has always existed".

NeilF · 9 Dec 2013 at 13:18

Caged said:
Believe what you want, but do it quietly.

But this is Dawkin's point... Take a look around you and see what is "pushed" on us, religion or simple, rational, skeptical thinking?

If we change the work "religion" to "magic", then we actually live in a society that endorses the belief in magic. There is not a shred of evidence for this "magic" yet our society gives it some form of credibility.

Dawkin's is questioning this... and it's important he does, because all manner of other nonsense exists off the back of this endorsement. Do you think we'd have as many psychics and clairvoyants in business if other "magic" was not so routinely accepted and endorsed by society, and people instead simply practiced a modicum of rational scientific thinking?

dirtychinchilla · 9 Dec 2013 at 13:19

Hades said:
* Consider the number 1 and consider an equal and opposite number -1. Both "exist" but when added together they are zero. So if you think of that in reverse; the number 1 and -1 can literally come out of zero or nothing. Both of those states can exist at the same time and both are equally valid.

Fantastic analogy! I've not seen it explained better before.

Columbo · 9 Dec 2013 at 13:21

Castiel said:
He does have a Foundation Institute which due to its mission statement could be compared to an equivalent or the antithesis of a Church depending on your perspective. Unlike Hitchens and Fry who are indeed simply published authors on Atheism and related topics.

"The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering."

Ironically given his stance on Religious Institutions not being given Charitable Status (despite all the actual Charity they do with regard homelessness, poverty etc) his own Institute is a registered Charity (although I have no idea of what actual charitable things they do regards such people in real need). I used to be a member and contributor until it became more about preaching atheism and anti-religion than promoting reason, humanism and science.

Thanks Castiel, I honestly didn't know about the foundation. I'll go and have a read up although if I'm honest I've only read one book by Dawkins, I much prefer Hitchen's writing style!

Hodders · 9 Dec 2013 at 13:38

To me the matter is simple. Countless religions have been created, flourished and died. No one takes Roman gods or Greek gods seriously any more. In 2000 years time I'm betting that Islam, Christianity and Judaism will all be in the same category.

If all religion and it's history were to disappear from all forms knowledge and memory, I'm sure other religions would appear in their place. BUT, they would be utterly different.

If the same thing were to happen to scientific knowledge it would come back exactly the same. Proof to me at least that science answers questions, religion just makes things up.

Zatoichi.uK · 9 Dec 2013 at 13:44

koolpc said:
Well, that's what a true Christian is meant to have. Utter faith in God. Unquestionable faith in God. One could never do this if one didn't believe in God.

How do you feel about the idea that God created man with a mind, reason, thoughts and inquisition, only to forgo their use?

Zethor · 9 Dec 2013 at 13:46

spudbynight said:
I can't take your first question seriously. Am I supposed to take the second one?

The first question is serious, here are some examples of Christian Gods:
- the one who literally caused the Great Flood and wiped off every species on the planet, minus what was on the Ark;
- the one who caused the Big Bang and let the laws of physics handle the rest (First Cause);
- the one who created man in his image (aka Yeti/Big Foot/the missing Great Ape?).

Shall I go on?

Each Christian has their own idea of God that differs by the extent of their magical abilities. The God of the Young Earth Creationists is not the same as the God of a person who believes in the First Cause. In other words, most people (including Christians) believe in a personal Creator that has cherry picked qualities (according to their personal views), rather than having certain fixed qualities. This implies there are in fact numerous Gods, probably as many as there are people.

My second question refers to the position taken by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, namely, that Atheism is the greatest of all sins. I was wondering if you agree.

Castiel · 9 Dec 2013 at 13:51

Zethor said:
The first question is serious, here are some examples of Christian Gods:
- the one who literally caused the Great Flood and wiped off every species on the planet, minus what was on the Ark;
- the one who caused the Big Bang and let the laws of physics handle the rest (First Cause);
- the one who created man in his image (aka Yeti/Big Foot/the missing Great Ape?).

Shall I go on?

They are all simply different interpretations of Scripture..not different Gods. The God remains the same throughout the Abrahamic Faiths, not only Christian Denominations, but also the Jewish and Islamic schools. These examples are simply things attributed to the same God by different interpretative manifestations by the respective school or denomination.

dirtychinchilla · 9 Dec 2013 at 13:53

You say that it's the same God, Castiel, but that is also only be interpretation. The books of those religions may say only one God, but the God can't be different every time, else who is it? If you attribute such different things to one individual, I think it would be fair to say that they may not be the same individual.

Castiel · 9 Dec 2013 at 13:58

dirtychinchilla said:
You say that it's the same God, Castiel, but that is also only be interpretation. The books of those religions may say only one God, but the God can't be different every time, else who is it? If you attribute such different things to one individual, I think it would be fair to say that they may not be the same individual.

It is the same God...attributing different actions to an individual doesn't follow that the individual is therefore different for each action. For example the conversation Spudbynight and I had on the actions and words of Pope Francis...I interpret his actions and words one way, Spudbynight interprets those same actions and words differently..does that mean there are two individual Pope Francis'?

They are not even different interpretations of God, they are different interpretations of what scripture say about God.

There is an intrinsic difference.