Richard dawkins

Dolph said:
He does have a tendency to mix the two, and make claims that can't actually be substantiated by the scientific method without belief in realism, that is true. It doesn't stop his evolution work being excellent, it just means he pushes it a little further than it can actually go without faith. (eg, evolution implying somehow that god doesn't exist. It doesn't, at best it implies that god is unnecessary, which is a similar result but definitely different overall).



That is a problem of Dawkins' own making though, he used his scientific reputation to shoehorn his philosophical beliefs into the world, if he wants to stop being pulled up on it, perhaps he should stop doing it.

As for it being a free country, of course it is, and I fu







I think he has actually stopped doing debates with creationists and theologians! If theolgy comes into the equation on a scientific debate then he is obliged to answer!

lly support Dawkins' right to publish whatever he wants, that doesn't mean I am required to give it any more credibility or attention than work by any other religious fundamentalist.
Click to expand...
 
Uriel said:
I've never read a book directly rebutting the God Delusion, successfully or otherwise. Quite frankly, it would be a waste of my time. The only part of the Dawkins Delusion that interests me are the bits written by McGrath's wife regarding Dawkins' use of the term 'Delusion' - as her academic background is in Psychology. That was one angle that didn't really stick out to me, when I read TGD.

This was a rough draft of something I wrote after reading TGD, and eventially posted here. It pretty much sums up how I feel about the book. I intended to get around to editing it a bit and putting it on a book review site but never bothered in the end. I've edited the bit about positivism now, as it didn't make sense at first but here you go:


Edit: Originally posted here: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php? p=14400892#post14400892
Click to expand...


No offence but this review is quite poor IMO especially if your aim was to rebutt dawkins' assertions! In fact it reminds me of the alistair mcgrath book I mentioned, where he goes to great lengths to try and look like he's broken down rd's ideas but doesn't actually get anywhere.
 
manic111 said:
Here's a question for Naffa, Norman etc.

Science can prove (at least beyond reasonable doubt) that the existence of a deity is not necessary for humans to have come to exist. However, putting aside any of your moral views about religion ("it starts wars", "people ram it down my throat" etc), for what reason do you believe that the theory of evolution is actually the way that we came to be, rather than God?

I am, here, casting evolution and religion as mutually exlusive, which they aren't - please take it as though they are for the purposes of this query though.
Click to expand...

I have neither the time nor the scientific credentials to answer such a question which requires a great deal of detail and understanding. That's not to say I don't know anything about evolution because I do have an ok understanding for a lay person, it's just I'd rather avoid doing the theory any disservice. Buy a book by the author in the op, maybe the greatest show on earth!
 
Uriel said:
Oh well, I'll take it as a complement that I managed to do in a few paragraphs what took McGrath a whole book to achieve :).

Most of TGD isn't worth rebutting. Most of the arguments in the book are with straw men.
Click to expand...

You are a good writer and much better than I could ever be at that sort of thing and I agree that the gd is regretable when he is in fact a lot better than that, it's still a thought provoker, however, and it's written with his usual charm and accessability IMO! I predict he's learnt a lot since that book and I'm not surprised that he has said that he's not got any plans for any further book of that style.
 
Castiel said:
Those two should both be in the affirmative, as he is a good orator and he does indeed attempt to force his own ideology onto others as his attempt to have the Pope arrested will testify to.
Click to expand...

That pope thing that Christopher Hitchens actually came up with is right on the money. Why should anyone be above the law? Especially someone who covers up a crime as disgusting as paedophilia. Just shows you what a daft world we live in and how power controls everything. It wasn't so much about trying to force their atheism down people's necks, but to highlight what they've been saying all along - Religion demands and receives way too much respect and protection. It's crazy.

How anyone can defend the pope and turn it back on Hitchens and Dawkins is shocking.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
I wasn't defending anyone, least of all the Pope. It was simply an observation. The Pope has broken no laws and if you read the News yesterday you would see that he was also quite prepared to punish those guilty of wrongdoing whilst he was a Cardinal, internal politics denied him.

Too many people making judgements with limited information is what is shocking.
Click to expand...

Limited information? It's fact that he wrote letters to every priest etc... in the world, basically telling them to keep quiet in order to protect the 'good' (haha) reputation of the Catholic Church.

Internal politics denied him? The right thing to do would have been at least to just let the allegations take their course, but instead he took active steps to conceal the truth, which almost certainly led to the continuation of priests abusing children. It's indefensible from a moral view point, even if it's not in law. If the law does prevent prosecution, then the law needs changing.

I doubt that Hitchens and Dawkins ever thought that they would be successful! They are way to learned of the world we live in to think that something would actually be done. However, they have just proven what they have said all along.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
"Proving" God exists or not won't change this. People will kill people if they want to and find all manner of excuses to justify it. Nazism is a good example of this.
Click to expand...

You're right, people will find a way to kill each other if they want, but religion is just one more reason to give them an excuse or a justifiable reason. Religion can act as an identifier when 2 groups of religious people are at conflict with each other. Take away a persons religious identity and there's one less thing to hate about that enemy.
 
semi-pro waster said:
How would you propose to take away a persons religious identity? And might that not be creating a worse situation than simply allowing them to believe? It'd also be against the ECHR but we'll skirt that issue for the moment.
Click to expand...

I don't propose to do anything. I'm just making the point that religious belief can convince people that doing bad things is justifiable if it's in the name of their religion. The promise of heaven and virgins taught by some religions seems quite tempting for those who are brainwashed by indoctrination. If people can accept that that outcome is actually unlikely, then flying planes into buildings or planting bombs on buses seems a lot less tempting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom