Richard dawkins

Castiel said:
What evidence have you to make such a rock solid judgement as there is no God.

Put aside for one moment any religious connection or interpretation, do you maintain that there is no such thing as a God regardless of how someone may define one?
Click to expand...

How can I put aside any religious interpretation when using the word god as interpreted by the two major religions - there is but one god

Anyone can have a god or call someone a god, Emperor Hirohito was considered a living god in Japan & Hindu''s have an Elephant & Monkey god along with countless others but you know exactly what I mean when I say there is no god - the omnipotent super being worshiped by Christians & others that supposedly watches over his devotees & the universe he created .
 
izzy eckerslike said:
How can I put aside any religious interpretation when using the word god as interpreted by the two major religions - there is but one god

Anyone can have a god or call someone a god, Emperor Hirohito was considered a living god in Japan & Hindu''s have an Elephant & Monkey god along with countless others but you know exactly what I mean when I say there is no god - the omnipotent super being worshiped by Christians & others that supposedly watches over his devotees & the universe he created .
Click to expand...

You know what the question means. Don't argue semantics.
 
vonhelmet said:
Yep, but you've dodged the issue of that being a faith based position.
Click to expand...

If faith is the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true then I definitely have faith that I can't flap my arms & fly.

My earlier post regarding Gobelki tepe has theologists jumping for joy because it's in the area considered to be the garden of Eden according to the bible & therefore the origins of man.

Why do they dismiss the known fact that the earliest remains of man are to be found in Africa which predate Gobekli tepe by hundreds of thousands of years ? Is it because Christians are so unsure of the authenticity the bible that they clutch at anything in an attempt to justify their beliefs & cast aside any now proven evidence to the contrary.

Why am I told not to take the bible literally ? this was not the thinking a few years back, is it because modern technology blows holes in it all by any chance ? How long will it take for it to be totally discredited as a book of historical facts & be relegated to the Myths & legends department.

Now it's more or less accepted that different religions see the same god in a different way, how convenient is that.

In the 1960's the church tried to ban ( and often succeeded) any pop music featuring Hari Krishna & that included a song from Beatle George Harrison & what about loopy vicars trying to stop kids from reading Harry potter because it's about witchcraft & the dark arts.Now how sad & deluded is that ??
 
naffa said:
A fair point, I may even be convinced to concede that while religion may not be the source of such actions, it is inarguably a catalyst of great strength.
Click to expand...

I think that's a reasonable viewpoint on it, sadly religion is or has all too often been used as the catalyst for evil actions. Whether they'd have occurred without religion I'm not sure, I suspect many would but it probably wouldn't have been as easy to get people to unite behind the cause.

izzy eckerslike said:
If faith is the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true then I definitely have faith that I can't flap my arms & fly.
Click to expand...

That's a falsifiable hypothesis though so taking a position on that is not a matter of faith, it's a matter of fact insofar as anything can be considered fact. The existence of god is not something that a falsifiable hypothesis exists for (presently and probably never will be) so if you're taking any definite position e.g. "there is no god" then you're taking a position of faith on that subject - there's nothing wrong with positions of faith but it's important that people recognise them.

izzy eckerslike said:
snipped for space
Why am I told not to take the bible literally ? this was not the thinking a few years back, is it because modern technology blows holes in it all by any chance ? How long will it take for it to be totally discredited as a book of historical facts & be relegated to the Myths & legends department.

Now it's more or less accepted that different religions see the same god in a different way, how convenient is that.

In the 1960's the church tried to ban ( and often succeeded) any pop music featuring Hari Krishna & that included a song from Beatle George Harrison & what about loopy vicars trying to stop kids from reading Harry potter because it's about witchcraft & the dark arts.Now how sad & deluded is that ??
Click to expand...

It seems as if you'd complain when the church(es) move with the times and equally if they don't alter to a more modern viewpoint. Is there any position they could possibly take that wouldn't raise your ire?

For what it's worth I think many churches have done a number of stupid things in the name of religions and many horrible acts are perpetrated apparently because of religion. That's a bit different from believing that this is representative of religion as a whole though.
 
vonhelmet said:
I've always understood that oral traditions are incredibly accurate. When all you have to record things is your own mind, you can develop incredible rote learning abilities.

Aboriginal historical/genealogical records would be a good example of this.
Click to expand...

And how is the accuracy of these oral records checked...?
 
izzy eckerslike said:
If faith is the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true then I definitely have faith that I can't flap my arms & fly.

My earlier post regarding Gobelki tepe has theologists jumping for joy because it's in the area considered to be the garden of Eden according to the bible & therefore the origins of man.

Why do they dismiss the known fact that the earliest remains of man are to be found in Africa which predate Gobekli tepe by hundreds of thousands of years ? Is it because Christians are so unsure of the authenticity the bible that they clutch at anything in an attempt to justify their beliefs & cast aside any now proven evidence to the contrary.

Why am I told not to take the bible literally ? this was not the thinking a few years back, is it because modern technology blows holes in it all by any chance ? How long will it take for it to be totally discredited as a book of historical facts & be relegated to the Myths & legends department.

Now it's more or less accepted that different religions see the same god in a different way, how convenient is that.

In the 1960's the church tried to ban ( and often succeeded) any pop music featuring Hari Krishna & that included a song from Beatle George Harrison & what about loopy vicars trying to stop kids from reading Harry potter because it's about witchcraft & the dark arts.Now how sad & deluded is that ??
Click to expand...

I don't care about any of that. You still haven't answered my question about whether your assertion that God doesn't exist is a faith based position.
 
Next time this thread gets done we really should ask people to add what their education and work is to see if there is any correlation between the viewpoint and the aforementioned.
 
maustin said:
Next time this thread gets done we really should ask people to add what their education and work is to see if there is any correlation between the viewpoint and the aforementioned.
Click to expand...

It might seem a little bit like appeal to authority though but we could try it here ex post facto as it were I suppose. Would it be just the highest level of education and current work you'd want or highest level of scientific education and any work or some other combination?

For what it's worth I'm degree educated in Law, currently studying to be a chartered accountant and working as a trainee accountant in the Civil Service. No formal scientific education beyond Standard Grade Chemistry (that's up to 16 years old for those unfamiliar with the Scottish system).

I don't know how that correlates with my viewpoint or what you might expect it to be given the above.
 
maustin said:
Next time this thread gets done we really should ask people to add what their education and work is to see if there is any correlation between the viewpoint and the aforementioned.
Click to expand...

Someone posted a graph in the random images thread suggesting that atheists had a higher level of literacy than any othe religious group, and that Christians came bottom... No info on the sample used though.

FWIW I have 5 A grades at A level, a 2:1 from Durham in Natural Sciences, I'm qualified as a Chartered Tax Adviser and I work as... a tax adviser.
 
3 science a levels, Geological Sciences BSc and Engineering Geology MSc here. Having said that, the most useful education I've had to this sort of discussion was an elective in Philosophy of Science I did during my first degree. Aside from that I don't recall much teaching on scientific epistemology. I think many people now just accept 'the scientific method' as gospel without further regard to its limitations or why and how it came to be.
 
My intention was not for any appeal to authority. My interest was more - are the people staunchly pro-Dawkins really that scientifically educated or are his strongest advocates readers of popular science books. There was a time long ago when I was less well read when I would have strongly agreed with his position across the board. However, life experience and delving outside of the pure scientific realm has made me have the view that I have: Dawkins = excellent at his main job + quite poor outside that area and that he has quite clearly gazed into abyss for far too long ...

In my experience the theologians I know are articulate, educated and deep thinking people who appreciate what can and can not be answered and shades of grey. Likewise most scientists I know are also the same. However, novices in both camps seem to be very black and white in their respective belief structures. Moreover, there are advocates in both camps who are also articulate, educated and deep thinkers but restrict their application to a single thing with an almost Aspergers like quality (maybe for good reason) that they never really quantify anything outside of this narrow realm.

Me - Medical field, educated to PhD
 
Uriel said:
3 science a levels, Geological Sciences BSc and Engineering Geology MSc here. Having said that, the most useful education I've had to this sort of discussion was an elective in Philosophy of Science I did during my first degree. Aside from that I don't recall much teaching on scientific epistemology. I think many people now just accept 'the scientific method' as gospel without further regard to its limitations or why and how it came to be.
Click to expand...

I don't have a degree as yet. I have 9 Olevels and 5 Alevels. I didn't need a degree for my chosen profession.

I don't know the relevence of formal qualifications in regard to belief as I know some highly educated people who are frankly nuts.
 
Castiel said:
I don't know the relevence of formal qualifications in regard to belief as I know some highly educated people who are frankly nuts.
Click to expand...

You may well be right it may well be that people that do read say popular science books are more aware of the limitations of the various paradigms because they have not only read the works of say Dawkins but also have delved into Popper, Comte, Mandelbrot, Lorenz etc and see the picture from a general merging of contrasting views.
 
maustin said:
My intention was not for any appeal to authority. My interest was more - are the people staunchly pro-Dawkins really that scientifically educated or are his strongest advocates readers of popular science books. There was a time long ago when I was less well read when I would have strongly agreed with his position across the board. However, life experience and delving outside of the pure scientific realm has made me have the view that I have: Dawkins = excellent at his main job + quite poor outside that area and that he has quite clearly gazed into abyss for far too long ...

In my experience the theologians I know are articulate, educated and deep thinking people who appreciate what can and can not be answered and shades of grey. Likewise most scientists I know are also the same. However, novices in both camps seem to be very black and white in their respective belief structures. Moreover, there are advocates in both camps who are also articulate, educated and deep thinkers but restrict their application to a single thing with an almost Aspergers like quality (maybe for good reason) that they never really quantify anything outside of this narrow realm.

Me - Medical field, educated to PhD
Click to expand...

I am a scientist, hold a 1st class masters physics degree and I know Richard Dawkins. He is excellent in his field, but honestly he has little real knowledge about the religions he attacks. Like many he attributes medieval conceptions of Christianity and assumes that this is still the case in every denomination.
 
maustin said:
You may well be right it may well be that people that do read say popular science books are more aware of the limitations of the various paradigms because they have not only read the works of say Dawkins but also have delved into Popper, Comte, Mandelbrot, Lorenz etc and see the picture from a general merging of contrasting views.
Click to expand...

I find People that read the popular mass-market science and philosophy publications such as the God Delusion or A brief History of Time are less likely to examine or investigate those claims in any more depth and as such have a rather polarized viewpoint which is generally related to the authors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom