Richard dawkins

[BunnyKillBot]

For example, as written in the Gospel of Matthew, on the day that Jesus was resurrected, in itself scientifically impossible, all of the dead in Jerusalem rose from their graves and visited friends and family.

Sorry, can you please link me to that scripture, because i don't recall ever reading it.

AFAIK the dead will be raised. That is to say Jesus conquered death and in doing so fulfilled the promise of resurrection into the afterlife.

 

[Naffa]

There are some who loudly state global warming exists and is a very serious problem. There are others who say it is nothing but a media scare to sell papers and over priced solutions.

Science, all science is a matter for debate, as it should be. The greatest failing your belloved science befalls is its inability to accept grey lines in what it supposes to be an infinite cosmos of binary decisions.

For any one person to take absolutely either side without consideration of the other is hypocrisy beyond belief.

Of course science is a matter for debate, that's what science is. I can't believe you felt you had to point that out.

What do you mean when you say that it's hypocrisy 'beyond belief', for anyone to take 'absolutely either side'? Do you mean that it's hypocritical to both be convinced of God's existence, and convinced by God's non-existence? If so, then I couldn't agree more.

In all cases? Probably not. In many cases, they certainly do.

The method and approach are different, but that does not mean the role isn't the same. We all do it, if we want to know something, what is the first point of call? There aren't that many who actually conduct the experiments to gain their knowledge, they read it, they get told what is right, what is wrong, what is going to have good results, and what is not. They rely on others to tell them, to find out, to research, just as people once relied on the clergy to interpret the information and give instructions from god, many people now rely on scientists to interpret the information from observation, and give instructions of how to improve it.

How is that really any different (ignoring the mechanism by which the recommendation is derived) to the role the clergy once played?

I know I don't personally verify every bit of scientific information I'm given, I take much of it on the words of those qualified to interpret it in that area, and where the area is muddy, I listen to all opinions, and usually make a choice based on what I feel is right.

Can you say, honestly, that you do differently?

Regarding the submission of one's belief's regarding scientific truth, or more specifically, the referral to those more capable and knowledgeable than yourself, I would be in alignment. I would happily refer to Hawking, Einstein, Dawkins, Gould, Krauss, etc.

But the beauty of science over religion, in it's simplest form, is the fact that it says it does not know. This could not be in stronger contrast to religion which, in fact, says the exact opposite, and that it does know. The scientific method of enquiry offers peer review, amongst other things, that actively seek to disprove a hypothesis repeatedly. Religion does not do this, religion has never done this, and it never will. Not only does it say, 'We have all the information that we require', i.e. 'Take no thought for the morrow', it actively seeks to prevent the discovery of information, the pushing back of the frontiers of understanding.

I could go on, but I feel that I've made the crux of my disagreement clear.

 

[Naffa]

Science is really bad at dealing with one off events, to the point where it will discard them as evidence, but that's not the same thing as stating it did not happen.

I wouldn't say that science is 'really bad' at dealing with one off events, but it's undoubtedly more difficult to construct a model, or hypotheses when you're unable to observe the same thing (or similar thing), multiple times. The discoveries we've made about the big bang have been simply spellbinding, yet that only happened once (in this universe, at least).

Sorry, can you please link me to that scripture, because i don't recall ever reading it.

You want me to link you to the scripture? I'll try and find a quote online, but I've certainly read it (yes, I have read the Bible).

 

[B&W]

Is there a society somewhere (Australia, USA, Iceland, Papua New Guinea etc) where their God actually comes and visits them every 20 years or so? Brings them presents from other worlds, (No, not Mars Bars, Milky Ways or Galaxy chocolate bars) gives them a bit of advice and encouragement, has a photo-shoot with his believers? Hands out updated copies of his bible incorporating modern thinking on homosexuality, female priests, getting blitzed on Lowenbrau on a Saturday night etc, etc, etc?

Someone who is a bit long in the tooth, say as old as Enoch? That way we’d all know it was true, there’d be no doubting Thomases then, no; because each time we saw him we’d recognise that he was getting older.

Why do all these societies have faith in a God that is not tangible? I don’t mean someone who thinks he’s God (Terry Wogan sit down please). Surely with the world’s diversity of religion ONE of those Gods should exist and should be able to show himself to us, come to our homes for a bit of a chat before zooming off to outer space?

Wouldn’t this country be better off spending the money it is going to spend on the forthcoming Pope’s visit to fund a University science laboratory to try to discover a cure for xxxxxxx’s disease?

If 'god' came and said I am the one who done all this, who would believe him and who would see him as a impostor, an alien who is doing it for his own ego?

God is often an idea, a belief. And can be used for good or for evil.

Why don't the government who spends money on other non beneficial stuff give it all to charity? It's not just the religious that are given free passes.

Religion can be used for the good of man, perhaps the pope will change some people's lives here by simply talking to them. Who knows how much might benefit.

For belief is more powerful then many other faculties we have been given.

 

[Naffa]

I think that one would always have to ask the question, when confronted with a evidence of a miracle, what's more likely, that the laws of nature have been suspended, or that you're under a misapprehension?

That's important to do if you saw it with your own eyes, let alone if you heard it second hand, let alone if you're hearing a two thousand year old version that's been told over, and over, and over, and been written, and rewritten, and rewritten, over, and over again.

 

[Surfer]

God isnt phenomena.

Science observes and measures phenomena.

So you can't really subject religion to the same arguments that one would use for "proving" theories (on phenomena).

Belief in God is something else. It is certainly not to be equated on the same level or terms as "Belief in Scientific Method".

Firstly and most simply - you can prove/disprove science. (within the boundaries of scientific proof) You can't do the same with religious belief - therefore the two are not the same.

Why? Because do you really think people are crazy nutjobs who just ignore the knowledge accumulated through science over the centuries (ie *evidence*) purely because X deity told them something different in an old book (*evidence*)

They are not competing *evidences*

 

[Castiel]

I think that one would always have to ask the question, when confronted with a evidence of a miracle, what's more likely, that the laws of nature have been suspended, or that you're under a misapprehension?

That's important to do if you saw it with your own eyes, let alone if you heard it second hand, let alone if you're hearing a two thousand year old version that's been told over, and over, and over, and been written, and rewritten, and rewritten, over, and over again.

It is rather arrogant to assume we know everything about anything. The unexplained is just that, unexplained. Simply because a 'miracle' doesn't fit within our field of current knowledge doesn't mean we should dismiss it.

 

[B&W]

One thing we are all missing is just how limited we are as human beings, how are minds work, etc.

The nature of man and his scope needs to be considered when we ask all these philosophical questions.

 

[Naffa]

It is rather arrogant to assume we know everything about anything. The unexplained is just that, unexplained. Simply because a 'miracle' doesn't fit within our field of current knowledge doesn't mean we should dismiss it.

I couldn't agree more (with the first part). My definition of intelligence, for a while, has been how much someone knows that they don't know. This is exactly the reason that the scientific method trumps religion, because religion says that it does know, or rather, how aware they are of their ignorance. It says that it has all of the information it needs, and that we have all the information we need, yet this ignorance is precisely what drives science, and scientific discovery, forward.

You appear to be agreeing with me, and crystallising my point, in the second part of your post, so I won't reply to it.

One thing we are all missing is just how limited we are as human beings, how are minds work, etc.

Again, I absolutely agree. The limits of which you speak are precisely the reason that religion exists at all.

 

[Dolph]

I think that one would always have to ask the question, when confronted with a evidence of a miracle, what's more likely, that the laws of nature have been suspended, or that you're under a misapprehension?

That's important to do if you saw it with your own eyes, let alone if you heard it second hand, let alone if you're hearing a two thousand year old version that's been told over, and over, and over, and been written, and rewritten, and rewritten, over, and over again.

I agree, but then, I'm not a christian.

That doesn't mean it couldn't have happened though, which is the key part. I doubt it did happen, but I would never say it did not happen.

 

[Naffa]

I agree, but then, I'm not a christian.

That doesn't mean it couldn't have happened though, which is the key part. I doubt it did happen, but I would never say it did not happen.

I agree, and that's a great example of why I'm more prone to science that religion.

 

[Castiel]

I couldn't agree more (with the first part). My definition of intelligence, for a while, has been how much someone knows that they don't know. This is exactly the reason that the scientific method trumps religion, because religion says that it does know, or rather, how aware they are of their ignorance. It says that it has all of the information it needs, and that we have all the information we need, yet this ignorance is precisely what drives science, and scientific discovery, forward.

You appear to be agreeing with me, and crystallising my point, in the second part of your post, so I won't reply to it.

Again, I absolutely agree. The limits of which you speak are precisely the reason that religion exists at all.

I am not religious, but I don't dismiss other peoples beliefs or their reasoning of why their is a God.

I have no scientific basis to disprove their claims in any absolute way.

I reserve the right to not accept their argument on a personal level, but for people like Dawkin's to dismiss belief as being a delusion simply because it cannot be proven by scientific method is arrogant and facile.

Human psyche is such, that given the right criteria we all on some level have Faith, we all either accept our futility and mortality or we have a deep seated hope in there being more than we experience. I find people like Dawkins are being dishonest with themselves if they deny their own niggling questions and ultimate hope that there is indeed something more.

Being on the verge of death at a relatively young age gave me a little kick concerning what I accept as truth and what I want to believe. I challenge anyone in such a situation, not to ask themselves, "Is there?" regardless of how strongly they have held to an atheist or scientific approach before.

 

[Uriel]

To quote someone I heard in a church based theology class: "don't knock Richard Dawkins: we love Richard Dawkins".

I used to be quite impressed by the guy until I read the God Delusion. I hadn't realised quite how breathtakingly clueless about history, philosophy or theology he actually is. Reading it was a bit like reading a young earth creationist's polemic that assumes there's been no significant development of the theory they're criticising since the 19th century.

 

[steve-h]

A great man, one of the few scientists left now that does their own thing. Too much of science has been taken over by huge corporations with hidden agendas, a team is given a brief and fulfills it to the best of their ability, rather than lettings scientists be free thinkers, coming up with their own solutions to whatever problem they want.

And say what you will, i haven't heard a word out of his mouth that i disagree with. Religion is okay when people believe in it because they want to believe in it. Who he 'targets' however is people who believe in it because they think it's actually the truth, which makes it a direct enemy of science - the study of and quest for the truth. When these people start forcing it on other people at birth and in education while they're growing up it becomes a serious problem, and is the cause of a lot of what's wrong with the world today.

People who think he is as bad as the fundamentalist need to take a step back and think before they utter such nonsense.
He may employ a similar up front in your face method of preaching, but his message is not so blindfolded/brainwashed and is there for you to choose not be forced into.
All he every says is that people should choose, research, test, and prove before assuming or believing.

I think its comically idiotic to not follow as similar system in your own life.

Agreed.

I've never had him at my door asking for a minute of my time. I have however had some moonbats trying to push religion down my neck.

ouch!

I love Richard Dawkins... he's one of few actually trying to bring some sanity and rational thinking to people.

 

[Naffa]

I am not religious, but I don't dismiss other peoples beliefs or their reasoning of why their is a God.

I have no scientific basis to disprove their claims in any absolute way.

I reserve the right to not accept their argument on a personal level, but for people like Dawkin's to dismiss belief as being a delusion simply because it cannot be proven by scientific method is arrogant and facile.

I'm not Dawkins' biggest fan, but have you actually read anything that he's written, or heard anything that he's said? Or are you just basing your opinions on a certain stereotype? Although the God Delusion is an incredibly dull read, I would recommend doing so if you're going to misrepresent his opinions, as you've just done. It's also worth noting that the question of whether the universe had a creator, and whether or not religion is man made, are two entirely separate questions. This is the case because the latter is a quantifiable, verifiable fact.

Human psyche is such, that given the right criteria we all on some level have Faith, we all either accept our futility and mortality or we have a deep seated hope in there being more than we experience. I find people like Dawkins are being dishonest with themselves if they deny their own niggling questions and ultimate hope that there is indeed something more.

He doesn't deny the unknown, the transcendent, that feeling that there's something more. He simply says that it's source is not the supernatural, something with which I am in absolute agreement.

Being on the verge of death at a relatively young age gave me a little kick concerning what I accept as truth and what I want to believe. I challenge anyone in such a situation, not to ask themselves, "Is there?" regardless of how strongly they have held to an atheist or scientific approach before.

People should be constantly asking themselves that question, anyway, as I do. I'm constantly challenging my beliefs, and as a result, strengthening them, and changing them. I think such a practice should be befitting of anybody that considers themselves to be of reasonable intelligence.

You maybe interested to read this:

Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe
The Universe can create itself from nothing, says Prof Hawking

There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.

He had previously argued belief in a creator was not incompatible with science but in a new book, he concludes the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

The Grand Design, part serialised in the Times, says there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," he concluded.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

I'm being very conservative with my usage of this article, because as you can see, the hyperbolic headline doesn't quite line up with the text beneath it, and I haven't read the book yet.

 

[Thunderbolt]

I used to be quite impressed by the guy until I read the God Delusion. I hadn't realised quite how breathtakingly clueless about history, philosophy or theology he actually is. Reading it was a bit like reading a young earth creationist's polemic that assumes there's been no significant development of the theory they're criticising since the 19th century.

I agree, to quote Matt Stone "he's the smartest dumbest person in the world", from one of the Amazing Meetings. Here

Definitely look up the "Amazing Meeting!" it's very interesting.

Only until recently I was Agnostic, but am now making an effort to get involved in the CofE, as I think its a smart and modern religion which has done a lot to work and blend with English culture.

 

[Dolph]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

I'm being very conservative with my usage of this article, because as you can see, the hyperbolic headline doesn't quite line up with the text beneath it, and I haven't read the book yet.

Just a small point, demonstrating that god was not necessary is very different from demonstrating god doesn't exist, especially with something completely unrepeatable...

 

[Naffa]

Just a small point, demonstrating that god was not necessary is very different from demonstrating god doesn't exist, especially with something completely unrepeatable...

Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear in my line underneath the quote, but that's exactly what I meant.

 

[Castiel]

I'm not Dawkins' biggest fan, but have you actually read anything that he's written, or heard anything that he's said? Or are you just basing your opinions on a certain stereotype? Although the God Delusion is an incredibly dull read, I would recommend doing so if you're going to misrepresent his opinions, as you've just done. It's also worth noting that the question of whether the universe had a creator, and whether or not religion is man made, are two entirely separate questions. This is the case because the latter is a quantifiable, verifiable fact.

I have read the book. My brother knows Dawkin's personally and have had the opportunity to meet him on occasion ( he is a very nice, personable and fiercely intelligent man I like him, just don't agree with him). I haven't misrepresented anything, he makes too many assumptions and has little real knowledge of the religions historicity or philosophy that he is criticising, and I am not referring to the book specifically, but generally.

He doesn't deny the unknown, the transcendent, that feeling that there's something more. He simply says that it's source is not the supernatural, something with which I am in absolute agreement.

He is not qualified, none of us are to make that judgement over what is supernatural or not. That is where his arrogance comes in.

People should be constantly asking themselves that question, anyway, as I do. I'm constantly challenging my beliefs, and as a result, strengthening them, and changing them. I think such a practice should be befitting of anybody that considers themselves to be of reasonable intelligence.

Agreed.

You maybe interested to read this:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

I'm being very conservative with my usage of this article, because as you can see, the hyperbolic headline doesn't quite line up with the text beneath it, and I haven't read the book yet.

I watched a debate on this the other night. It will be interesting to read the book as there is some debate over what Hawking actually said.

 

[NormanPorkinson]

To quote someone I heard in a church based theology class: "don't knock Richard Dawning: we love Richard Dawkins".

I used to be quite impressed by the guy until I read the God Delusion. I hadn't realised quite how breathtakingly clueless about history, philosophy or theology he actually is. Reading it was a bit like reading a young earth creationist's polemic that assumes there's been no significant development of the theory they're criticising since the 19th century.

Could you be so kind to point me to a good book that sucessfully rebukes the gd? I tried the dawkins delusion by the theolgy professor alistair mcgrath but it was pathetic and actually made dawkins arguments look stronger not weaker. Thanks in advance!