Richard Dawkins is a British ethologist, an evolutionary theorist, and an established writer. He is an outspoken Atheist and religion’s chief prosecutor. In his latest book, The God Delusion
His views have been seen as extreme in some circles, but I just see them as educated, honest and open. Check out this recent interview with Salon magazine to get a flavor for Dawkins. I guarantee you will read the entire article. But just in case you’re still not interested, here’s a sample…
I think there’s something very evil about faith, where faith means believing in something in the absence of evidence, and actually taking pride in believing in something in the absence of evidence.
Here’s his views on teaching children about God…
But to teach children that it is a fact that there is one god or that God created the world in six days, that is child abuse.
I encourage everyone to read the interview before posting your comments. As for me… I’m ordering the book as I find Dawkins absolutely fascinating.
What about you? Is he a science crackpot, or genius?
Related posts:
- Dawkins Defending Atheism On CNN
- Evolution Under Attack In Kenya
- SOS–Crusaders Invade Georgia Public Schools
- Creationism–A Veil Of Ignorance
- Christians Should Walk Their Talk And Not Squawk
October 16th, 2006 at 2:34 am
well, i’ve personally thought that it’s a better idea to be subtle in all cases, that it is more effective, but I kind of find myself agreeing with his words.
Sometimes subtlety doesn’t work. If people believe the creation thing then apearently subte words don’t work, so time for the blatant outcry. maybe that’ll get people thinking.
October 16th, 2006 at 2:58 am
Why can’t he be both a crackpot and a genius?
Obviously he’s a very smart man and a good scientist, but he has a very warped view of religion. The reason for it is quite understandable: he spends his professional time researching things that loud crackpots would prefer not be researched, as a result, he runs into a lot of crackpots.
Looking at his first quote, it should be obvious that he’s attacking a straw man definition of “faith”. Secondly, it begs the question as to what constitutes “evidence”. If you need scientific evidence to believe in something, then you can’t believe in anything that isn’t science, such as philosophy.
On the second quote… he has a point, but the use of the term “child abuse” is, frankly, highly offensive. I realise he’s just trying to get a rise out of people to make a point, but you can’t compare pseudoscience with child abuse. He’s a parent and he should know better.
October 16th, 2006 at 3:06 am
oh, just figured out that there is a lot more article then I thought…
Let’s start by saying
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++What What is so bad about religion?
it encourages you to believe falsehoods, to be satisfied with inadequate explanations which really aren’t explanations at all. And this is particularly bad because the real explanations, the scientific explanations, are so beautiful and so elegant. It’s even sadder if [people] are actively discouraged from understanding by a systematic attempt in the opposite direction
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“”You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further”"
Well, maybe that now some writer says it, It might sink in a bit further.
“”Are you saying the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist? — There’s a fair bit of evidence in favor of that equation, yes.”"
Ok, that might not have been the smartest thing to do, calling all relious people stupid. Altough he did not do so, I predict that the words will be twisted and taken out of context to suggest that he did call christians or [religion here] idiots.
Buuuut, let me not play the fanboi and support everything, let’s wait for the discussion to start with someone who disagrees with him.
October 16th, 2006 at 3:26 am
Dawkins seems to propose a sort of “atheistic fundamentalism” which at times I agree with quite strongly. If the traditional religions are prepared to forcibly brainwash their victims, then should atheists be trying to forcibly trying to inflict our version of reality on the deluded masses?
October 16th, 2006 at 3:59 am
He also wrote The Selfish Gene? Awsome i read that book, never cared to check who wrote it(maybe i did but never gave it a second thought)
Now just for the sake of starting some discussion:
Couldn’t teaching a child anything that’s not proven be considered child abuse?
Don’t get me wrong here, those people who make their children cry like the one in the following video are certainly abusing them
http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/06/04/next-generation-of-religious-freaks/
But what about those who when asked “mommy where do the bebies come from?” answer “god sends a soul….etc” it would be pretty hard to explain to a child all the (even if vastly simplified) genetics that are involved here, saying the stork/God/santa did it is just easier. Can we consider this child abuse as well? “mommy where did the world come from?” “honey god created the world in six days and sent jesus/mohammed/the tooth fairy to teach us love and understanding…etc”
October 16th, 2006 at 4:54 am
Well, I’d like to read the full article, but that site is thoroughly broken. The only way I get a link to the free pass thing is by disabling Javascript and styles. And then the link brings me right back to the article’s introduction.
October 16th, 2006 at 5:23 am
I personally think Dawkins is quite a character. “Darwin’s Rottweiler” is all too apt a nickname. He makes the arguments that the rest of us are too restrained to make - reading his work is like indulging in all the secret fantasies athiests and agnostics have repressed politely inside.
As for what to make of him on a political level, he is awfully outspoken on issues and doesn’t use subtlety to his advantage. However, it is refreshing to see a man who lays it all bare on the table and ploughs on regardless.
As for his comment on child abuse, I would tend to agree with him on that point, at least to a degree. While “child abuse” is loaded with connotations, the essence of stunting or warping a child’s sense of the world through religion is something I am firmly against.
A well written article. Dawkin’s ability to express his point is nothing short of impressive.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:08 am
man, child abuse? i dunno, believing in the easter bunny never bothered me.
although, i never bombed a building for blaspheming the easter bunny either.
the problem is not in the content, it is in the passion. Then again, the passion is feuled by the ‘holier than thou’ principle many idiots have.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:37 am
I have really been enjoying Salon’s series of interviews on science and religion. I really enjoyed the interview with Michael Shermer who is, along with Dawkins, one of my favorite thinkers.
This weekend, I had a tough choice to make. I was at the book store and I had to choose between “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris (thanks, RF, for the referral!) and “The God Delusion” by Dawkins. I chose Harris’s book because he already wrote a follow up that looked interesting, but, after reading the Dawkins interview, I’ll definitely be buying it in the future.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:50 am
Hello Pseudonym,
In your post you wrote, “Looking at his first quote, it should be obvious that he’s attacking a straw man definition of “faithâ€.” I would be interested to know what the ‘correct’ definition of faith is. Dawkins’s definition does line up with one definition at dictionary.com, but I’m interested in how the religious community would define the word.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Dawkins also did a 2 part TV documentary called the god delusion/virus of faith and though I actually think he got out-argued in some of the parts of it, is a good introduction to his philosophy. If anyone is interested, I’m sure it’s available on the net somewhere.
Dave
October 16th, 2006 at 11:32 am
I have read much of Dawkins material. He is diligent and rational. Dawkins has awakend me to the perversity of many of the proud organized religions. I can’t call myself an atheist for obvious reasons however, I agree with Mr. Dawkins on almost all the issues that he brings forward.
The Fearless Manatee Hunter,
Killer of the Gentle Sea Cow
October 16th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Pseudonym,
As sidfaiwu pointed out, the very definition of faith is belief without evidence. Just calling an argument strawman doesn’t make it so. As for evidence, good philosophy requires evidence and a clear statement of what assumptions, if any, are being made. Evidence may be physical or logical, but it is still subject to scientific evaluation. Dawkins’ argument in his book is that the god hypothesis can be evaluated and the evidence overwhelmingly points to the nonexistence of god.
Indoctrinating children in religious dogma can be seen as abusive in multiple ways. Teaching very impressionable children that things are not as they are is equivalent to teaching them that gravity doesn’t always apply or fire isn’t hot. Worse than that is the inherent tribalism mentality that separates people into ‘us’ and ‘them’ just by the circumstance of their birth. Those infamous ten commandments didn’t apply to how Jews treated non-Jews only how they were to treat other Jews. If you read them as they were applied in the Old Testament you get things like thous shalt not murder other Jews. If you were sleeping with a Gentile slave that wasn’t adultery, but sleeping with a Jew that wasn’t your wife was.
Of course the other aspect of child abuse is the idea that everyone is inherently sinful and evil and that even if you try to be good you’re destined to fail. You can see the effects with the widely known Catholic guilt. If a parent constantly berated their child and told them they were worthless and evil without mentioning religion people would be quick to consider that mental abuse. But when done in the name of religion it isn’t?
I’m about 3/4 through The God Delusion, and so far my only disagreement is that he comes to the conclusion that god is super extremely improbable but not impossible. I have not yet seen a definition of god that could conceivably exist.
The BBC documentary, The Root of All Evil? is very good. I think it’s the best that has yet been made. There are links to avi’s of it in its Wikipedia entry and it is also available on Google Video. My student group, theatheistagenda.org, screened it at UTSA last week to a crowd of about 80. It was very well received.
October 16th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
“Just because science so far has failed to explain something, such as consciousness, to say it follows that the facile, pathetic explanations which religion has produced somehow by default must win the argument is really quite ridiculous.”
That was the best sentence I’ve read in a long, long time.
Also, to Nick, just because you haven’t yet seen a definition of god that doesn’t exist doesn’t mean god doesn’t actually exist. I myself think god probably doesn’t exist, but I have yet to see anyone prove god’s non-existence, so how can I (or you) be so certain? As Dawkins himself says, “You cannot actually disprove the existence of God.”
October 16th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
I guess the probability of God’s existence is heavily factored by the definition of God…
I think the Christian version of God is impossible. But the Darwinian (if i remember correctly) version of God could be accepted. Non-sentient, pure energy, cause of existence, ever-present and eternal… Matter, or reality, itself would then be ‘God’…
October 16th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
The idea that reality itself is God is what the philosopher Spinoza argued. He said that God was literally “everything”. It’s usually called pantheism, but most Christians at the of his writing called him an atheist and burned his books.
Definition does definitely matter. But in many conventional definitions, God is of a different nature than man, and so to truly “know” or “percieve” him would be impossible. So you can never really disprove it, because you can just say, “It’s impossible to percieve God. But he is there.” Then again, I have yet to see an actual tangible piece of proof that points directly to his actual existence, so I’d say the idea of such an omnipotent being (following a more general definition) is probably unlikely.
October 16th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
sidfaiwu, Nick:
The Greek word that the New Testament translates as “faith” means pretty much exactly what the roots of the English words “fidelity”, “faithfulness” and “faithless” mean. These words refer to trust, not belief. Why “faith” got a different meaning in English, I’ll never know.
For example, I am faithful to my wife. I don’t break the trust that we have. You could say, I suppose, that I believe without scientifically valid evidence that she loves me (in the sense there’s no repeatable scientific experiment that could prove this, though there are many ways in principle that it could be disproven), but that’s not what the word means.
When people ask me “Do you believe in a god?”, I reply: “Do you believe in science?” If you’re anything like me, you don’t have an answer, just a bunch of objections to the question. Science isn’t a set of propositions to be accepted or rejected, it’s a process by which we discover things.
The thing that concerns me the most, as a scientist who is part of the religious community, is, as the article says, Richard Dawkins acts against the best interest of science by giving the IDers a huge amount of ammunition. For a long time, “creation scientists”, as they used to call themselves, used to misquote scientists over and over again. If you knew the quotes, it was easy to counter them. Now, Dawkins has given them a corpus of real quotes equating science with atheism that are much harder to challenge.
This is why Dawkins is not my friend, despite being the enemy of my enemy.
Oh, and I’m a liberal/mainline protestant. You definitely won’t have an argument from me on the dysfunctionality of “Catholic guilt”. Thankfully, that’s on the way out; the current generation of Catholic parents seem to recognise it for what it is, at least in the developed world.
October 16th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Oh, one more thing. The reason why I brought up the “do you believe in science” bit is because it’s EXACTLY the kind of semantic shift that you hear from some in the ID crowd.
“Faith”, in the true sense, can be applied to science. Every day, I bet my life on science. I put my trust in machines and safety equipment all based on solid science. If that’s not “trust”, I don’t know what is.
But “faith” in the false sense cannot. Science, as I said, is not a set of propositions to be accepted or rejected. And nor is any reasonable religion. Any religion that “required” me to believe in things blindly would simply not be worthy of following. That goes double if those things are anti-scientific, like rejecting evolution.
October 16th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
It’s all BS, what evidence he wants?, beleive doesn’t need proof, although there are a lot of proofs out there to whom want to see the truth, but for sorry arrogancy makes people blind doesn’t want to even think about this proof.
I don’t reject evolution, it happenes but with limits, it’s gift from God to help the weak creatures to find it’s survival in this life.
October 16th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
I loved The Selfish Gene, and I suggest that anyone who wants to seriously look at religion read the chapter on memes and maybe pick up Though Control or some other literature on the subject. It was really a change for me to start thinking of how ideas propagate and evolve rather than just wondering why people believe in something. It makes you realize that the religions that are out there didn’t just happen by chance, they have certain qualities that allow them to grow and stand the tests of time. And if you really want to do something about blind faith and superstition, you’re going to have to fight ideas; not just people.
October 16th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
“It’s all BS, what evidence he wants?, beleive doesn’t need proof, although there are a lot of proofs out there to whom want to see the truth, but for sorry arrogancy makes people blind doesn’t want to even think about this proof.
I don’t reject evolution, it happenes but with limits, it’s gift from God to help the weak creatures to find it’s survival in this life. ”
He wants empirical evidence. That is to say, observable, repeatable evidence. Not proof as in questionable “historical” texts, with validity that is far from certain, or proof as in one person’s illegid feelings. Basically, he wants something that can be shown to be true. Religion cannot be.
Your so-called acceptance of evolution astounds me. You would admit that evolution is all but proven, and far more than likely happens, but you reject the fact that we evolved. Only one assumption can be gathered from this about your stance on science. You’ll accept what is logical, and what can be shown empirically, but only when it does not go against your religious teachings.
October 16th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Liked what I read, his stances in some areas are tad direct but have to say I admire his way of saying what he means instead of applying few coats of political correctness (Protection factor 15). You do not need to agree with him but you sure know what he thinks of the issues, quite refreshing.
He does hand out lots of rope for the ID movement but hopefully they hang from it (lame joke, sorry) but on the other hand the truth is out now so that is also good.
Showed the article to a friend of mine and realised once more how badly religious people cope with any kind of critique. I will definitely order those books now. Passed on Dawkins before, shame on me, with reading time being so limited.
October 16th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Pseudonym,
Belief and faith are terms that mean a lot of different things to many different people, but they are just words, nothing more. I think Mr. Dawkins was pointing out the horrifying nature of those who KNOW there is a god. Some people may just think there is a god, or hope there is one (I would call them agnostic), and I have no problem with them, but those who know (a frightening majority, atleast in america) doing things in the name of Jesus/God/Allah, are the ones that cause the problems, and they are the one’s he’s talking about.
What does it mean to be a christian? Is it accepting Jesus? Wouldn’t this imply that you know he existed?
October 16th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Your Father:
Yes, “belief” and “faith” are terms that mean different things. Just so you know where I’m coming from, I’m using the Greek term in the New Testament that is customarily translated to the word “faith” in English. If the discussion is over Christianity specifically, that’s the right term to use. Since the creation “science” movement is primarily part of American Fundamentalist Christianity (and speaking as a non-American observer, you’re right that the “American” qualification is very important), then this, I believe, is the appropriate definition to use.
If you’re talking about Allah, by all means use a more appropriate definition if you think this ine is not appropriate.
As to what it means to be a Christian… I’m going to dodge that question. Putting limits around Christianity is a favourite passtime of sectarians and cultists. It goes with the siege mentality, of God’s Own People being “in here” and the Heathen Sodomite Scum being “out there”. That sort of thinking is nothing short of evil, and there is no way I’m going to play that game.
Hell, the sort of fundamentalist morons who believe in creation “science” (Jack Chick springs to mind) often argue that Roman Catholics aren’t Christian. I have a lot of bad things to say about Roman Catholicismm especially when taken historically, but that’s just stupid.
October 16th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Yuor father,
We studied evolution in Egypt, you can’t take theory could be right in narrow limits and makes it the creation of human-being, God create the human-being with a brain to think about to know how to use the fire to get warm and get used to his environment, animals need evolution to survive and not all animals could have it and survive.
There is no evidence for evoulution, it’s all theory, but for god you can find a lot of evidence.
Human-being created as human-being, we never saw any other accident make the evoultuion true, and it will never happen, and human-being was not on the earth from million years, it’s BS, I don’t think that Human being is more that 50000 years old, and I don’t think that enough for Apes to be human-being.
The other thing, what makes the human-being alive, isn’t the seoul, where did this seoul goes, and how the evolution explain the seoul. God said that the seouls from his knowledge, did we ever know any thing about it after all the scintefic progress, do we know where is it exist? and we will never know after all this fake progress in scince.
Thank you
October 16th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Mohamed,
What is this evidence for God? Just out of curiosity.
October 16th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
“There is no evidence for evoulution, it’s all theory, but for god you can find a lot of evidence.”
Ok, fossil records and observable genetic drift in certain insect ARE evidence. Books about fantastic feats that have yet to be reproduced since are not. If you wanted to show evolution, you could gather a selection of insects of a certain species with a short lifespan, invoke a condition that would make the traits of a subset of the insects more favorable for reproduction/survival, sit back and watch. It is repeatable and observable. It is empirical evidence. If you wanted to prove religion, then you’d have to resurrect the dead or part the red sea, etc…. CANT BE DONE.
“The other thing, what makes the human-being alive, isn’t the seoul, where did this seoul goes, and how the evolution explain the seoul. God said that the seouls from his knowledge, did we ever know any thing about it after all the scintefic progress, do we know where is it exist? and we will never know after all this fake progress in scince.”
Ok, I’d like to know what you think a soul is exactly and why you think animals don’t have them. You are assuming science is flawed because it can’t explain something that all evidence leads one to believe doesnt exist.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
As I said before, there is part of the evolution is right, for insect, yes it’s happening, and that’s from god wisdom, tell if there is evolution to serve this weak insect to protect from the enviromenel change it, who would protect it.
Evolution it’s another thing from God cration, it’s not that the creation its self. Man kind has his mind to over come thiese difficulties that animals can’t do.
Give me the evidence that evolution made the human-being, where are the Apes that you are talking about, and why they disappeared, and why we didn’t evolute to something better than we are, and you know why? because there is nothing created as perfect as human-being, not in behavior though, I meant as creation.
In order for human being to exist, that’s need billions of chances, which there is no way it could happen, do you know how diffcult is that, it will take trillions of years that if your assumption is right, and you dumo the abvious and the easiest way to the truth, that god exist.
What I understood that you don’t beleive in seoul existence, so what makes the human die.
The evolution again, you can find in disease, where god shows again and again, that when you think that human being knows every thing, god creats more diesease and sometimes from diesease it’s already exist, but it’s evoluted to represent challange for human being to know that how much you know, you have limits, you just know a little and what just god wants you to know.
I hope that nobody think that I’m against the scince, I really appreciate the scince and what has done and also sometimes I hate what sometimes done(bombs and neuclare), we just have to remember that it’s all by god will, may be 20 years from now we would think that we didn’t know that much.
October 16th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Mohamed
Your comments warrant a response, but since I don’t have the time to look for extensive evidence at the moment, I’ll answer what I can without:
“tell if there is evolution to serve this weak insect to protect from the enviromenel change it, who would protect it”
Perhaps nothing actually protects it. If any species, insect or otherwise, cannot adapt, it goes extinct by evolutionary theory (assuming God isn’t involved). If it survives, it’s because it is able to take care of itself by whatever methods or advantages it can get.
“Give me the evidence that evolution made the human-being, where are the Apes that you are talking about, and why they disappeared”
The “apes” are well documented. Austrolopithecus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and so on. They follow a steady path from an ape-like form to a human-like form. They disappeared because the environment they lived in changed, with those that could change and adapt becoming distinct new species, and those that could not going extinct. And for the record, we evolved from ape-like ancestors, not just apes.
“and why we didn’t evolute to something better than we are, and you know why?”
Because we don’t have to. We have what we need to survive, so any new characteristics that appear don’t out-live the “standard” human form. Evolution doesn’t state that things constantly move towards ultimate perfection. There is a fish known as the coelocanth (I think) that was thought to be extinct for millions of years until one was found a few years back, practically of the same primitive form as its ancestors. There was no need for evolution to survive in its environment, so no evolution happened. Perfection means nothing in evolutionary theory, only survival.
“In order for human being to exist, that’s need billions of chances, which there is no way it could happen, do you know how diffcult is that, it will take trillions of years that if your assumption is right”
Not trillions of years, billions. About four billion, in fact. The earth is dated at about that age, I think. I’m no scientist, but I think that is sufficient time. And yes, the odds are really low. But then again, the odds of everyone in the world having the birthday that they do is 365 to the power of about 6.3 billion. And yet, everyone has the birthday they do. Low odds doesn’t mean it can’t happen. You can say the same for God, and I agree. However, that doesn’t prove God’s existence. Human existence, however, does have proof, in that we exist and can have this debate.
“The evolution again, you can find in disease, where god shows again and again, that when you think that human being knows every thing, god creats more diesease and sometimes from diesease it’s already exist, but it’s evoluted to represent challange for human being to know that how much you know, you have limits, you just know a little and what just god wants you to know.”
A strict evolutionist would ask what on earth you are talking about. You seem to confirm here that evolution exists in disease, but that God causes it. The evolutionist would use this idea that evolution exists in disease, and that sometimes diseases arise from diseases that already exists as evidence against you. For example: we develop a cure for a disease. However, not every disease specimen in the world is exactly the same, and some strain with an unusual mutation survives the cure. Those survivors reproduce to create more of the disease, all carrying that trait of immunity. It’s not a challenge from God in the atheistic evolutionist’s eyes, but the disease trying (and succeeding) to survive.
I think the best saying I ever came up with during my spare time was, “Faith is belief in the absense of proof.” So, while you are entitled to your belifs, and I respect them, be careful to bring faith into the realm of empirical science. While matters of religious doctrine and divine purpose can be debated, the truth inherent in facts cannot. God is not typically included in theories of evolution because facts and evidence have yet to provide reason to include him. Until then, God will only be seen as a matter of faith. Which, given the nature of religious faith, may be necessary. Because, if you think about it, if God just came down and proved his existence, what would be the point of faith?
October 16th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
One correction: when I mentioned the odds with the birthdays, it should start “one in”…so, 1 in 365^6,300,000,000.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:34 am
Snurp,
I never denied the evolution, I just said it exists in a way to serve the survival of species. you mentioned that now we don’t need to have more evolution, I don’t think if you believe in evolution, that evolution is choice, it always has to happen, which we didn’t see it in human-being or nobody even witness it, there are people witnesses prophets and mircales and they told us about it, and it happens that three different religion came with the same stories to the same prophets, and all three religions came with the same story with Adam and Eve, even though that these three religions don’t come along togather in most cases for sorry.
I will agree with you that we came from apes, where is the apes came from, you will say the came from lower species, ok what the begining of this species, you might say what evolutinest say that they formed from carbon, who made the Carbon, for god sake who made the Carbon?
Somebody has to create something in able for this life to exist, there is now way you will get bare-bones computer ans set the parts in front of you and you expect by chance it will become computere after while, you have to assemble this parts to make a computer.
The same concept here, that somebody at one point create something to start this world, there is no way this world came from non existence, that’s my proof, I don’t believe in God because I born Muslim, I jsut thought about it and that the only logic, even if what you say is right, there is creator to start this life.
I don’t mean to argue for the sake of arguing or being stubborn, what I’m saying is not just from belif, it is from thinking and thinking, and believe me if I just believe without thinking, it would be easy to be convinced by your opinion.
And notice that all I’m saying here, I never quote Quran or any thing, I’m trying to talk the same language you are talking, I’m talking logic, we may have different ideas but we have the same way.
Thank you Snurp at least for being civilized talking about the issue.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:32 am
mohamed, go learn english first. seriously. reading your posts is excruciating. i hate to sound like a dick, but its not an issue and its not talking. you have been chasing your tail, and a few others have been humoring you. if this is the best you can come up with after “thinking and thinking” then your god help you.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:09 am
“for god sake who made the Carbon?”
The stars (I am not kidding).
I know where you want to go. But the obvious question is then: “for ‘whatever’ sake, who made god?”
October 17th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Wow, this has turned into a pretty interesting read. First I’d like to go back to the discussion on faith. Pseudonym is right in his definition of faith, and even if you look at the english translation (I’m using NIV) of the new testament, you get this definition:
“No faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”
If you think about that, it’s a lot deeper than just saying, “I believe in God.”
Now on to science. No, you cannot disprove the existence of God. No, I cannot offer you anything that would prove beyond any shadow of doubt to you that He exist. I have evidence that is enough for me, but what’s good enough for me may not be enough for someone else. I can’t give you, for example, the experiences that have shaped my life. In my life, especially recently, I have witnessed and experienced a lot of supernatural activity, and all within a church setting. Is my saying that enough to convince all of you? No, but the experiences are more than enough to convince me. This argument over who can prove what about God seems rather pointless, to be honest. However, for the sake of discussion, what gives us hope? What even allows us to have faith? What allows me to feel sympathy?
For that matter, what is science? I had this discussion last night with a friend. Science is man’s attempt to understand the world around him. That’s it. Now for the sake of argument, IF God did exist, and He really did create everything here, including you and I, is it bad science to take Him into account? If God really is the origin of everything, what’s religious in saying that God is the origin of everything?
So now we move to this evolution bull. Tell me please, someone, how did life come to exist on this little dirtball of ours?
October 17th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Sorry…
“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”
October 17th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Nova, humor me for just a second and let’s assume that God does exist in all of His majesty and splendor. Can you do that? Thankyou. Now, assuming that, why does He have to have been created? The more obvious question would be, if God exists, why do you or I have to be able to understand Him? If God exists, do you really believe that we can comprehend Him, when we can’t even comprehend something as simple as gravity?
October 17th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
@lord spanky
if god exists, why would anyone worship him? i don’t get the worship fetish. also, has it ever occured to you that god might be mis-representing himself. maybe he’s pretty damn powerful and knowing, but not omniscient?
how would you know? the lack of comprehension would certainly make his job a lot easier. maybe he’s not alone. are there others of his kind, but he may not want you to know of? basically, my question is as follows: assuming bible was inspired by this god fellow, and lets say the voices in your head are not a severe psychosis but truly god talking to you, how do you know he’s not lying?
October 17th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Actually, Boris, I thought we were debating God, not Christianity, but okay. I never said anything about voices, either, and to date I have yet to experience any voices in my head. I was referring, more specifically, to things like medical miracles, such as a curing of cancer. Something like a woman being diagnosed with brain cancer. We have the CAT scan imagaes and everything, she’s definitely got brain cancer. The next week, it’s gone. Not a trace of it left. No surgery was performed. Now the logical question is, what happened between those two points, yes? Further, if God does exist, and He really does hold the universe in the palm of His hand, so to speak, then why would want to NOT worship Him? Remember, the Christian idea of worship is a sense of adoration and communion with God.
By the way, no one ever answered my question as to how life started on this dirtball.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
was that “miracle” confirmed by a doctor? i have no medical training, looking at radiology images would tell me nothing. until those results are confirmed by an independant study it’s a parlour trick in my eyes. and what of the many (religious and not) people who end up dying of whatever disease? why is god being selective with his children? if thi s miracle indeed happened, how do we know it was gods doing, and not something else?
i’m not into worship of any sorts. even if there was a creator who “designed” me, i’d be hard pressed into submission of any kind.
“By the way, no one ever answered my question as to how life started on this dirtball.” for the millionth time, we don’t have 100% of that knowledge. we have a developing theory that so far is based on sound evidence and observations. in time that theory will most likely develop into a complete answer to your question (but only if we don’t find scientific evidence that another theory makes more sense, which is unlikely considering the amount of work so far and all the fossil evidence). in the meantime, i am not gonna be happy with a crazy fairy tale that pretends to be that answer.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
My point is asking about the origin of life is simple. Had the earth’s atmosphere had oxygen in it in the “primordial” stages, it would have been impossible for life to form. Amino acids, sugars, and purines would have reacted with it to form Carbon dioxide and water. Easily observable even today. Evolutionists propose a reducing, which is elaborate but for our purposes suffice to say that it means that there was once no oxygen in the atmosphere and that has gradually changed until we had a current setup. The problem here is that without ozone, radiation from the sun would have completely destroyed any organic molecules. A “catch 22″ situation, as I’ve heard it put. So, where’d we come from? Creation may have holes in it, but evolution has just as many.
Also, are you telling me that you need medical training to see a bone fracture or break in an x-ray? Or to tell your mom that she’s got the flu? You may not be able to draw the same elaborate conclusions that a doctor can, but don’t be ignorant in your argument. As for people dying, we’re back to asking why I have to be able to comprehend God. I stopped trying a while ago.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Mahomed,
First, I should clarify the point on evolution always happening. I actually agree with you that the process that is evolution is always happening. However, what I am claiming is that it isn’t always necessary. Evolution is simply a specific phenotype (I think it’s phenotype and not genotype) succeeding where others fail and gaining dominance. If the common phenotype is still sufficient to survive, then evolution in any direction will probably not happen on a species-wide scale. But, since environments are dynamic and change pretty much constantly, new phenotypes do appear often (relatively speaking). A good counterexample could be humanity. We are largely the same as we were thousands of year ago. But, first of all, is that really that long on the scale of the world (if in fact the current methods of dating it at about 4 billion years are correct)? Also, with a population of over six billion, how long would it take (short of a worldwide extinction event) for a new human phenotype to become dominant, especially with humanity’s obsession with being the top of the food chain and general fear of those unlike itself (to support this, I think that most of us agree that most animals don’t go out of their way to eliminate us as a threat)?
Also, as for the origin argument that you bring up: first, the point “Where did God come from?” is a legitimate question here. Where did God come from? The usual answer I hear is that he didn’t ‘come’ from anything. But with that logic, you could say the universe didn’t ‘come’ from anything. Perhaps the universe has always existed, and it just so happens that because the odds of this particular universe coming into being are so low (as you mentioned) it just didn’t happen until now. It can’t be disproven, so it’s possible. Maybe this universe is just one form (or dimension, if you will) of reality that happened to appear at a certain time and place. Remember, evolution still has not answered how the universe, or life itself, actually began. It probably never will. But the idea that God is the answer can be disputed. This also goes to Lord Spanky.
As for three religions with the same story: I can’t speak for the prophet of Islam, but Jesus himself was a Jew, and so raised with the Adam and Eve story, which helps to explain why Judaism and Christianity start the same (even the Old Testament is just the Jewish holy book, I think).
To Lord Spanky:
First, God is not accepted into science because he has not shown himself to be consistent with science. Science, by definition, can start with no assumptions, only facts. God is not present because facts have not yet indicated that he should be.
Hope, faith, and sympathy, it could be said, allow us to better survive. Animals struggle against all odds to live, and those species that care about their fellow members outlast those that don’t. It might be that faith itself is a product of evolution. Faith, by this idea, gives people more will to survive, and as a result more survive, passing their faith to their offspring through transmission of ideas to the infant.
As for miracles: just because we can’t explain it, doesn’t mean God did it. Positive evidence, my friend. Disproving opposing theories isn’t enough, since there are infinite possibilities that could be taken into consideration. Perhaps the Greeks were right, and it is not the Judeo-Christian God but Zeus himself?
October 17th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Lord Spanky, evolution does indeed have holes. The purpose of scientific study is to patch them. From what I’ve seen, Creationism (when most people use it) simply uses God to patch them without further justification. “It’s God’s will”, “God works in mysterious ways,” or “It must be part of God’s plan.” Scientific study doesn’t accept that.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
I’m not going to be happy with a crazy fairy tale, either, which is why I can never except evolution. The origin of the fairy tale doesn’t change the fact that it is still a fairy tale. By the way, the fossil record supports a spontaneous creation, not evolution. Many link fossils of supposed ancestors of man have been proven to be hoaxes, and the ones that have been shown to be legit have also be proven to have existed at the same time as us (we were all contemporaries). Not only that, but if you look at the genetic structure of these “men”, it is in fact virtually indistinguishable from our current genetic make-up. Add to that the fact that in the fossil record (the Cambrian explosion), complex organisms suddenly just appear with nothing before them, already developed, and oddly enough, organisms appear to become simpler as you approach modern day, not more complex. I refuse to believe a fairy tale as well, whether it is spun by “science” or faith. Whether creation is or not, evolution obviously is not a logical belief. It requires just as much faith, if not more, than the creation viewpoint.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB030_1.html
here’s a response to your ozone question lord spanky. once again, evolution having holes does NOTHING to improve credibility of creationism. you CAN NOT prove creationism by disproving evolution (even if it was possible to do so).
October 17th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
ok spanky, attacks on evolution are pointless. why don’t you from now on improve credibility of creationism without involving evolution. if there is any merit to it, creationism should be able to stand on its own.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Snurp, I’m not trying to use God to patch evolution. I saying that God created us in six days. I’m saying that I don’t believe a bit of evolution. Many of the examples that get quoted here and elsewhere are excellent examples…of adaptation. Micro-evolution. Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are two entirely different things. Also, how does sympathy help us survive? How does love help us survive? Reproduction is not dependent on love, and this is demonstrated constantly in the animal kingdom.
As for the three religions, just quickly, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all attribute their origins to the same thing. The first split is between Judaism and Islam. Jews and Christians say that God chose Isaac and cursed Ishmael, while Muslims say that God chose Ishmael and cursed Isaac. Isaac and Ishael were both descendants of Abraham. The second major split is the obvious one between Jews and Christians.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
boris,
Give me a bit, it will be a long post and I don’t know if I’ll get to post before 7 tonight (central). I have prior engagements that I’m about to have to attend to in about 30 minutes, and I still haven’t eaten lunch.
Oh, and attacks on evolution are not pointless. I’m not using that to say that creation is true. I attacking evolution to say that it’s not. If evolution and creation were neither one true, honestly I would be completely in favor of trying to find out what actually happened. I’m sick of science not accepting that maybe evolution isn’t true, maybe the truth is something that no one has considered yet. If that leads to creation, so be it. If not, I’m okay with that, too.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Well, if it is proven that evolution is not true, then science is not going to be very upset about it. It just takes another dilemma and starts to work with that.
The thing making me rely more on science is just that, it does not care if the end result nullifies the original theory or not. The search for answers is driving force in science as I understand it.
But if it is proven that there is no gods, what will you do?
October 17th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Before I take my break until this evening, I thought all of you might find this rather interesting…
Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, “And we find many of them (fossils) already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. …the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation…”
October 17th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
I will say that there are no Gods, and my life will go on.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Ah, nothing like taking the world’s foremost critic of Creationism out of context in support of Creationism.
Actually, looking across the net, I find this quote use by Creationists all over the place! Let me go get my copy of “The Blind Watchmaker” and turn to page 229 and 230…
“And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you might think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of ‘punctualists’ and ‘gradualists’. Both schools of thought despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. Both schools of thought would agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative.”
There was quite a lot contained in those three dots (…) in Spanky’s version of the quote, wasn’t there?
October 17th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
well done sidfaiwu…
October 17th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Lord Spanky,
First of all, adaptation is the heart of evolution. It’s the idea. Evolution IS adaptation.
Secondly,
“Not only that, but if you look at the genetic structure of these “menâ€, it is in fact virtually indistinguishable from our current genetic make-up.”
This is against evolution how? The theory is that we evolved from them. They are our ancestors. How different do you expect us to be? The closer one species is to another, the closer the two species’ genetic material would be, in theory. We share about three quarters of our genes with dogs. We share about 95% with chimpanzees. Would we not be even closer to those most like us?
As far as complex organisms suddenly appearing, and organisms getting simpler.
First, I already said this, I’ll say it again: complexity or perfection or some greater anything does not matter. Does NOT matter. Survival is what is selected, not more or less cells. Diseases survive to this day, despite in many cases being single-cellular and, most would argue, far from perfect. Complexity means little.
As far as organisms suddenly appearing: this seems legitimate until you consider how a fossil is made. Think, if you will, of a dead fish. The odds that, when it dies, its bones will not be digested, that they will not dissolve, that they will in fact stay in place and be covered with material that will maintain the shape when the bones eventually disintegrate and then fills in perfectly with material to form a fossil, is astronomically small. Nearly -all- things that die do not form fossils. There are probably many species we will never discover for this reason. There will be gaps in fossils because we will never find them all, in short. Also, sudden jumps can be explained to some degree by mutation as well. Limbs on an animal won’t just get longer with each successive generation. There is no sensible reason. The reason is more likely in genetics, which in most cases is a mutation. For some reason the genes in a certain animal won’t be quite ‘normal’. In most cases such mutation would cause death, but in the rare case that it does not cause death or weakness but in fact advantage, then it is evolution in progress. It sounds like it would take an incredibly long time, and it certainly does. But then again, the earth is scientifically estimated to be pretty old.
I have to agree with what boris said in 45. This is not going to go anywhere. I am waiting for someone to back up Creationism. Not to show that evolution is wrong, but to show that Creationism is right. I have yet to see that here. I have explained why I think evolution is right, and I have used evidence to the best of my abilities (given a severely restricted amount of spare time on my part). As I said in a prevoius discussion, I base my theories on evidence, not the other way around.
One last thing: to prove Creationism in the manner that has been present here, ie by disproving other theories, to truly prove it beyond a doubt, 100%, you will have to disprove evolution along with every other possible theory ever concievable. Only when Creation is the only option left among the infinite possibilities will this method prove effective. That is why I prefer positive evidence.
October 17th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Lord Spanky,
The problem with your argument, is that you can say the same about anything that comes to your mind, from the teapot orbiting Pluto, to the flying spaghetti monster. You arbitrarily add a set of properties to an entity you invented.
But let’s assume this entity really exists. Either it has some effect on us, therefore we can measure it, or it has none, therefore there is no reason to believe that him exists more than with the flying spaghetti monster.
Besides my first argument was clearly put out to demonstrate how the argument of “who created it in the first place?” does not work.
October 17th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
And about miracles. Spontaneous recession of cancer is rare but happens every day. Both on believers and non believers. It is a well documented fact that with cancer (and many other diseases) this can happen. The body it is the best medic of itself. But it has some limits. Nobody - for instance - has ever had its leg or arm to regrow. No matter how much they prayed or implored.
I do understand the surprise and the gratitude that some people might feel, when they find themselves free from the disease when they considered themselves condemn.
They are not stupid. They don’t fall on the first perception of every bit of skewed evidence (jesus pizza anyone?) that crosses their imagination.
They are just.. incredibly lucky.
October 17th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
sidfaiwu: “Ah, nothing like taking the world’s foremost critic of Creationism out of context in support of Creationism.”
Getting back to the topic at hand, the thing about this article is that Richard Dawkins partly brings this problem on himself. Every time he equates science with atheism, he loses an ally of science.
That species evolve into other species is a fact, no matter what your metaphysical philosophy, or lack thereof.
October 17th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Boris,
I never claim that I’m really good at Englis, I think snurp understood my ponint and that enough for, you want to make fun of me or not, it’s up to you, it doesn’t even bother me.
You are free to say what you want, believe me I don’t care.
Any way I don’t want to give more time than you deserve.
Snurp,
you said that the universe just existed, I think that’s really weak assumption, every where you look around there has to be reason for something to exist.
I agree that we are not going any where with this conversation, you can believe what ever you want, I know deep inside that crationsm makes way better sense than evolution, and again is not becaus I’ve told that god creats us, I see it that the only way for things to happen.
Good luck you guys with your belif.
October 17th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Hello Pseudonym,
I think you misunderstood my post (#51). Compare it with post #49 and you’ll see I’m refuting Lord Spanky’s misquote of Dawkins. I have no doubts about evolution’s validity.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
The only thing that I see as being, well, repugnant about Dawkins in this interview is the subtle hypocracy that is inherent in his speech. He states that there can be no way to be a ‘positive aethiest’, yet he then goes on to imply that only idiots are not positive aethists. He states that it is evil to believe something without proof, but he states (after saying that you cannot be an aethist as there is no way to prove God doesn’t exist) that he is an aethist.
It’s subtle, but it’s still hypocritical. This is the same ‘fire and brimstone’ crap that you hear from the far-right Christians, only done in a 180 degree turn. “You need to believe what I believe because it’s right! You have no proof, and you cannot produce proof, so I’m right in telling you you’re wrong (even when I have no proof either, and I’m just as much a believer in something unprovable as you are).
The point I’m making is that a true aethist (Like Dawkins) is as much a believer in something unprovable as The Pope. The only difference is that the aethist doesn’t have any organization that can be reflected on him (like the Islamic terrorists reflecting on ordinary muslims, or the Crusading Catholic church reflecting on the average christian). You think that these people are evil. They are not. You think they are mistaken. They may or may not be, but the same applies to you.
Now, if you keep a cool head (unlike Dawkins!) and understand that somethings do not need, and in some cases cannot be supplied with, a rational reason, then you can understand faith without trying to vilify it. But if you can’t see how aethism and religion are simply two sides of the same coin, well… You’re really not understanding the issue at all.
(As an aside, I thought Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene was extremely well written, but suffered from the same problems. There were a number of subtle unstated assumptions in that piece that were interesting, IIRC. It’s been 5-6 years since I read it, however, so I doubt I could quote them…)
October 17th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
I’m watching this guy (Dawkins) on the Colbert Report right now, and believe it or not he seems like a nice, rational guy. I now want to see an angry, red-faced preacher yell at us about how this man is full of Satan and hate. The irony would make me smile.
October 18th, 2006 at 12:06 am
Hey Outsider
Actually, Dawkins does explain himself about his supposed ‘faith’ in positive atheism:
He tells of 7 degrees of theism (and atheism)
1 - 100% - God exist.
2 - 99% - I can’t prove God, but I’m all but certain that he IS.
3 - 51% - I’m agnostic, but God sounds good.
4 - 50% - Pure agnostic, completely neutral.
5 - 49% - Agnostic, but… God?
6 - 1% - Atheist, but can’t disprove God.
7 - 0% - God does NOT exist.
He then proceeds to say that position 1 and 2 are heavily populated with the faithful. 3, 4 and 5 are more or less inhabited by unsure, unconvinced or really agnostic people. 6 is where most, if not all, atheists are. And 7? Only blind atheists-faithful can have that arrogance.
And THEN, he position himself between 6 and 7, not capable of disproving God, but capable of proving God to be statistically VERY improbable. (Note is does not include the ‘energy/matter-god’ of einstein nor the ‘physics-law god’ of Hawking, only the present/concerned/personnal ones (primarily of Abrahamic roots))
October 18th, 2006 at 10:43 am
okay, here goes for the billionth time…..
.
.
proof is for mathematicians, Scientists deal in theories.
.
.
“”And THEN, he position himself between 6 and 7, not capable of disproving God, but capable of proving God to be statistically VERY improbable.”"
well that is where i’d be to. I’ve always said that god might exist, but there is no need for one.
October 18th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
@spanky
i’ve read your post, thx for putting effort into this. i’ll try to post a response by tonight.
October 18th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
@spanky again
Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, “And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. …the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation…â€, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230
sidfaiwu already refuted this quote as doctored and taken COMPLETELY out of context… stuff like this reflects poorly on your other claims.
October 18th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
[...] Lord Spanky has once again punished his keyboard with an enormous response to my post on Richard Dawkins. I offer it to you in its unedited form and eagerly await your comments. [...]
October 18th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
copying to the new thread for easy reference, no need to reply here. I crossed the now reply.
October 18th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
@Neary
The only problem with that is that the vast majority of religious people don’t fit into the catagory 1, and even catagory 2 is a little strong. (I’d say that, for the average religious person, it’s more of a “I cannot prove God exists, but I believe it’s much more likely than his non-existance”.) In other words, the average ‘believer’ is a lot more moderate in their belief in God than Dawkins is in his belief against God.
Then he goes on to say that teaching people to follow belief blindly is evil. I agree with that 100%, but that’s not what the average believing parent is doing; in fact, the only person here that is doing that is Dawkins, when he tells you that only the uneducated or mistaken believe in God.
That’s why I say it’s hypocritical. He’s telling you to not follow beliefs blindly, but he wants you to believe what he does without any firm proof. He even states that there can be no firm proof.
Here are the two relevent quotes:
” I think there’s something very evil about faith, where faith means believing in something in the absence of evidence, and actually taking pride in believing in something in the absence of evidence.”
“Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further. ”
In the first quote, he says it’s evil to be proud of believing in something that goes beyond evidence. In the second quote he takes pride in being an atheist in relation to all gods including Yahweh.
And, to be honest, it bothers me that I’m seeing a hypocracy that you are not. It bothers me because that means that either I’m missing a pretty major portion of his arguments, or you’re closing your eyes to the fact that athiesm (and not agnostism) is just as much faith as thiesm. Belief in non-existance without proof is as scientific and logical as belief in existance without proof.
I can understand the United Triumphant Church of Apathetic Agnostics; God may or may not exist, but He/She/It’s existance has no relevance to me. As a somewhat spiritual person, I don’t believe that, but my beliefs are simply what I choose to believe without proof and as such are no more valid than yours or even Dawkins… But then, I never claimed that Dawkins was evil for pushing his brand of belief, just a hypocrite.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
It is only the extremists who make themselves heard, never the moderates. I’m just glad there are people like dawkins who give the secular side some airtime. I may not agree with every little thing he says (although I do agree with most), as his message is a bit on the extreme side, but as far as extremists go, I’d rather listen to him than a religious extremist. He is far more reasonable than the other end of the spectrum.
October 20th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
See, and I don’t see that. I just see that he’s more capable of hiding his hate under a veneer of ‘polite scientist’, which gives him more leverage in our society.
Look at it like this; If you were told that your beliefs were stupid, how would you react? With open venom. But, if you are respected for holding your beliefs, you then show those beliefs calmly and more politely.
Dawkins is as much of a hateful person as the Christian Minister that says Gays are evil. Both are being bigoted and prejudicial towards a large portion of society. (As long as the minister isn’t a ‘Kill all the Fags!’ type, that is…)
The difference is really that, in intellectual circles, Dawkins represents the majority, so he gets to be on the offensive and nobody cares. In intellectual circles, a extremist religious person is seen as a nutjob and let at that… which would be extremely frustrating when you are that extreme. Dawkins never runs into that frustration because he’s supported by his community, and gets to look down on all those people that he views as being ‘inferior religious types’.
October 21st, 2006 at 7:45 am
I don’t have beliefs per se. I just think that there probably isn’t a god. The way I see it the natural universe doesn’t need one, and the only reason to believe in something so unnecessary is desire for an afterlife and that sort of thing, which isn’t exactly something a creator would necessarilly provide anyways.
What kind of society do we live in where people can question any belief, except those of a religious nature? Most religious beleifs (especially the more dogmatic ones) are “stupid”. Maybe the people who believe them aren’t, but the beliefs are. People need to question them, whether they like it or not. The issue isn’t intellectual arrogance, whether it’s applicable to dawkins or not. Personalities aside, what he’s saying should be heard, because people in general, don’t think enough about why they believe things. They just believe things, and horrible things happen because of it.
October 21st, 2006 at 11:21 am
Outsider: Could you give me an example in which Dawkins has been irrationally hateful and bigot?
October 21st, 2006 at 11:47 am
I never said he was being irrational. As for hateful? Well, I think that the way he describes teaching religion is pretty much there. His statement (that I’m going to paraphrase a bit to make this point easier to understand) “Teaching your children to follow your religion is child abuse.” is hateful. It is easy to see this if we can make his statement into a bigoted Cristian statement by replacing the object of his statement. “Teaching your children to accept homosexuality is child abuse.”
It is rational. If you accept that God doesn’t exist, everything else in his comments are rational. The plain fact is that you cannot prove the assumption that God exists, however, so the rest of this his the same variety of hyperbolic that comes out of the hardcore religious person that assumes God is real and builds arguments about everything based on that. To assume that you are right and everyone that disagrees with you is at best being fooled, and at worst is willfully stupid and evil is bigoted. It’s bigoted when a Christian minister does it while he’s picketing the funerals of gays, and it’s bigoted when an intellectual figure is villianising everyone who holds religious belief. (Sorry, guys, but it’s making people into villians by accusing them of child abuse.)
So, I think that the ‘religious teachings = child abuse’ is hateful and bigoted. It’s somewhat milder because he backs off it a bit, but it’s the same level of hateful bigotry that you get from the statement “Homosexual behavior is a sin, but we do not hate the sinner, only the sin.” The hate and bigotry are there, but they are not as obvious as picketing graves.
Now, I’ve got a question. Do you see atheism as a belief, like Christianity (without the church)? Or something else?
October 21st, 2006 at 2:13 pm
atheism is not a belief. it really does not compare to any religion. atheism came about from a gradual questioning of all sorts of religious nonsense. all of this happened gradually, over long periods of time, as *real* evidence became available. noone sat down and wrote the holy book of atheism, revised it a million times, insisted its the only truth.
October 21st, 2006 at 4:00 pm
I believe what dawkins was going for in his statement about ‘religious teachings = child abuse’ is that exposing their children to religious teachings isn’t a problem, but telling them that it is true, and not to think about it or consider any other idea, think critically, etc… severely inhibits a childs ability to think freely.
Im pretty sure he wasn’t going for something like, if you don’t teach your children not to believe in god, you’re abusing your child.
To answer your question, I see atheism as a lack of belief in things we can’t prove. No more, no less.
October 22nd, 2006 at 3:26 am
The difficulty I have with atheism not being a belief is that the statement “god does not exist” requires as much belief as the statement “god exists”.
Atheism is defined by that statement. Agnostism is the lack of belief either way; the statement “god may or may not exist, I have no way of knowing.” is the fundamental statement in agnostism.
I can understand agnostism as not being a belief. You’re just stating that the question is unanswerable. But atheism does not just leave the question unanswered, it states that without proof of god, there is no god.
Taking that stance, then saying that others are stupid for believing in something… That I find hypocritical. Maybe because I don’t tie spirituality to religiousity, but see the two as seperate things, that may be why I see it the way I do. I see religions as simply being a social framework on which most people hang their spirituality, nothing more. The underlying belief does not require the religion.
Bah, I’m obviously missing some unstated assumption. Either that, or my stated definition of atheism is different than yours, and that’s where the problem comes from…
October 22nd, 2006 at 11:29 am
“But atheism does not just leave the question unanswered, it states that without proof of god, there is no god.”
No it doesn’t. Atheism is defined as either the lack of beleif in gods or the belief that there are no gods. Only some atheists believe there is no god.
Since the very definition of believing is a conviction of truth without verification, I would say that I don’t believe there is no god per se. I just find it extremely unlikely that there would be one. I probably fall in line with dawkins on that one.
You seem to be pretty reasonable for a religious person, so let me ask you, why do you believe in god? Do you follow any particular religion?
Do you believe in an afterlife? and if so why? and is it because you want to, or do you sincerely think that it is a likely assumption? and once again, if you didn’t, would you still believe in god (I just don’t see the point)?
October 22nd, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Your Father, I think that this will take a bit. I’d rather not give you a flippant answer, but instead, take a bit of time to answer. A few days perhaps. If that is ok with you?
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:22 pm
No, I demand an answer now!! =P
Nice to know I’ll get an answer in a few days, but you certainly don’t need to ask my permission.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Sorry, I’d rather you think I’m overly polite than ignoring you. I am Canadian, you know… ;)
Hmm… How do I answer these questions? Nominally, I am a Baha’i*. That, however, really isn’t what you’re asking. What you are asking is do I believe in God, and why? Well, I do, but the why is a much harder question than it seems. You could look at my background, but that will only confuse you worse. (I was born into a free-spirituality house, was raised and trained to be a scientist, and married a pagan/Wiccan/ex-Catholic. Talk about a mixed background!) I could tell you about my experiences as a young adult, navigating the world of spirituality to finally come to where I am now, but that will tell you why I am what I am, not why I believe.
The honest truth is that I believe in God because my gut tells me that it’s the right assumption to make. The assumptions that I make are few, but here they are:
1) Humans are very complex, but they can only understand things that are on the same order of complexity as them (or less)
2) The universe has effectively infinite complexity, so much so that I will never be able to assimilate even one dimension of it completely.
2a) There exists things in this universe that are much more complex than humans. This includes intelligences that go well beyond us.
The existence of God is a logical consequence of the two thoughts above. If humans are complex, but there are more complex things in this universe then us, then the same thing should apply to them, right? Extend that logic all the way up, and you’ll end up with a being (or set of beings) with a complexity approaching infinity. God is, as far as I can tell, infinite and existing beyond time and space, as well as pervading both. This does not mean that He (for a lack of a better pronoun) really _is_ infinite, but that He approaches infinity closely enough for me to assume it from my very finite perspective. It does not mean that God has to exist; there can easily be a limit to the ability of this simple equation to be ’scaled up’. It does, however, allow for a logical place for a being of God’s complexity.
Image the following scenario: (For the record, this is not what I believe, just something that I’ve thought up that is logically consistent.) A being with an unending life (I’m thinking far future, perhaps human mass-mind, maybe something else…) that continues to grow in mental complexity throughout its life. Eventually, this being becomes complex enough to contain everything within the universe. Well, with that much mental ability, what do you do? I don’t think it would be a great leap to create a new universe with that much mental power… In theory, it would even be possible to create your own, original universe. (If you can remove yourself from time, you are not constrained by cause-effect relationships.)
So, you create your own little universe. Maybe you recreate the universe you grew up in. Whatever the case, that will be a massive undertaking, but it’s not enough. Inside that universe, complexity arises (in the form of life…) Of course, being a mental power unlike anything else, you will have known that would happen, and so you plan for it. You take care of your children, even possibly taking them into yourself at some point in their lifespan. (At death, perhaps, when they’ve grown into the most complex mental beings you can get…)
This continues, feeding more complexity into you until everything in the universe is part of you. Repeat as neccessary.
To be honest, I don’t think this is true. But it’s logically consistent. Wherever God came from, the second part is how I think He’d deal with us; He created our world, so leaving us to grow up, grow old, and then die fruitlessly would be simply irresponsible. And, as a side benefit for God, he gets to help us towards becoming as complex as He is, at which point we can add our intelligence to his, increasing his complexity, mental ability, and (probably) happiness.
So, in short, I believe in an afterlife because it is a directly logical consequence of an infinite creator being (as any being that is powerful enough to create the whole of our existence would also most likely be a responsible being as well). I believe in God mostly because I have a gut feeling that His existence is more likely than His non-existence (but whether or not that gut feeling is influenced by my belief in an unending gradient of complexity in this universe, I don’t know). Everything else is derived logically from that gut feeling, though, which is why it is belief and not certainty. That is also why I’m willing to accept your belief that god does not exist as a possibility; your gut tells you different than mine tells me.
* If you want more information on the Baha’i faith, http://www.bahai.org/ would be a good place to start. I’m not as much a practicing Baha’i anymore, but I still follow most of the tenants. Feel free to ask anything you really want; I’ll give you the best answers I can.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
The problem I see with your argument, is that you quantify complexity and associate it with the nature of the universe. Complexity is an abstract term used to describe a degree of chaos or level of difficulty, not a concrete mathematical formula describing any real phenomena. It is just like the human concepts of good and evil. Nothing in nature is inherently good or evil. There are no evil molecules or forces. It’s just the way we perceive things.
There are many abstract terms like this. Let’s take sexy for example. There are sexy things out there, and things sexier than us. Extend this logic and you must conclude that there is something out there that is infinitely sexy. Can I then call this god and use my logic to as proof of concept? What does sexiness or complexity have to do with our origins?
In the case of complexity, it is fact that we evolved from less complex organisms, which is a perfectly reasonable and does not require god. Why then would a complex universe need a complex god? and what makes you think he created the universe for us?
October 25th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
“To be honest, I don’t think this is true. But it’s logically consistent. Wherever God came from, the second part is how I think He’d deal with us; He created our world, so leaving us to grow up, grow old, and then die fruitlessly would be simply irresponsible.”
While I agree that as far as we know, it may very well be possible for a being with understanding far surpassing our own to create a universe, but there is no reason to believe that we were created this way. There is also no reason to believe that such a creator knew we would arise in such a universe, or if it exists, knows of our existence.
After all, the beginning of life on earth was more than likely a product of chance, and the universe is so vast that it may be likely that life would occur in one form or another, but it is not guaranteed.
If something created our universe, and we came into existence through evolution (which we did, there really is no arguing that point), it stands to reason that it is not irresponsible to just let us die, but merely a logical step in the game of life and evolution. It does not stand to reason that a god needs to be responsible, and even if it was that it would stand to gain from our complexity.
“That is also why I’m willing to accept your belief that god does not exist as a possibility; your gut tells you different than mine tells me.”
I’m glad you’re willing to see all possibilities, and I am as well, but consider this: It is perfectly logical that these “gut feelings” about god or “feeling god’s presence” are a natural defense mechanism to keep up stable. I mean, the real reason we fear death in the first place is because we need to for survival. It stands to reason that those that fear death more survive more, and it also stands to reason that such intense fear may lead to mental instability, which is why such a god feeling may have arisen in our genes.
October 28th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Sorry for the delay in answering… I’m a college student and it’s midterm season, which doesn’t leave much time for, well, anything.
The ‘complexity is not a measureable thing’ comment is, I think, a bit misguided. Complexity is defined as “The quality or condition of being complex”, and complex is defined as “Consisting of interconnected or interwoven parts”. This means that the more complex something is, the more parts it consists of, allowing that the parts are interconnected. A cell is complex because it consists of many organelles that are interconnected. You are more complex, however, because you consist of a large quantity of cells that are interconnected, each one consisting of a large number of organelles that art interconnected…
You see where I’m going with this? You want a measure of complexity, simply measure (a) how many interconnected parts are within that thing, and (b) how interconnected they are. Simple, quantifiable, and logical. Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with how you see things; your body is complex, even if you don’t know it is.
In response to ” Why then would a complex universe need a complex god? and what makes you think he created the universe for us? “, I don’t think that the universe _requires_ a complex god. You’re thinking I’m an ID wingnut; I understand the process, and realize that the _requirement_ simply doesn’t exist. But, you have to admit, in a universe of infinite complexity, the _possibility_ exists. Now, the probablity is up for question. You would put the probablity of a being of infinite (or approaching) complexity as minute. I’d put it at about the same as DNA spontaneously forming. (That’s not to say I don’t think that DNA spontaneously formed… It didn’t, quite, but the process is pretty well explained by Evolution and such.)
In other words, I’m not saying that because our universe exists, God has to exist. I’m saying that, with the level of complexity in our universe, it’s a definite possibility.
Now, after all that, it really comes down to a gut feeling. Really. Because, in the end, we simply do not have enough evidence to go on. Either pro or con, neither side can say for certain, and all you have are hunches and circular reasoning. So, I follow my hunch that says a God exists, and He cares. You follow your hunch that he doesn’t either exist or care. (It’d be kinda hard to care if you don’t exist, right? :) )
And what about it being a defense mechanism? Sure, it could be. It could also be that your refusal to see God as being a possibilty is also a defense mechanism. You don’t want your actions to be judged by anything other than yourself. Having something that is bigger, more powerful, and infintely wiser than you trying to tell you what to do? I mean, who wants to answer to someone else in everything they do? Hell, not even me! Especially when that authority is always so damn sure of itself… So, instead, you deny your own ‘hunch’ on such a basic level as to not even realise it is there.
I’m not saying that that is the case. But it’s as logical as saying that my hunch is simply a fear of death run amok. Both are possible. You have to choose what you believe; it cannot be proven. Hence it being _believe_, not _know_.
You can choose not to believe, too. But that does not say “God doesn’t exist.” That says “I don’t care if God exists or not.” If you say God does not exist, you have a belief. One that is just as valid, IMHO, as saying He does. The only thing I object to is stating that “God does not exist” is not a belief.
October 29th, 2006 at 3:03 am
“The ‘complexity is not a measureable thing’ comment is, I think, a bit misguided. Complexity is defined as “The quality or condition of being complexâ€, and complex is defined as “Consisting of interconnected or interwoven partsâ€. This means that the more complex something is, the more parts it consists of, allowing that the parts are interconnected. A cell is complex because it consists of many organelles that are interconnected. You are more complex, however, because you consist of a large quantity of cells that are interconnected, each one consisting of a large number of organelles that art interconnected…”
I did not say complexity is not a measurable thing. I said complexity is an abstract term that is merely a perception. Good and Evil can be measured in much the same way. i.e. How many people ultimately benefit from something, how good feelings are, that sort of thing… Now you can measure good and evil and complexity all you want, and we can perceive them to be as real as we want, but they are real ONLY in that we perceive them that way. Break your definition of complexity down to the most basic level and a human is no more complex than a cement block. They can both consist of the same number of interconnected quantities of matter/energy/etc.
October 29th, 2006 at 3:05 am
err.. quick edit.
“They can both consist of the same number of interconnected quantities of matter/energy/etc.”
should be:
They can both consist of the same quantities of interconnected matter/energy/etc.
…its late
February 28th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Richard Dawkins is a genious in every sense of the word, and the way you are portraying him and trying to sum up his beliefs in 2 quotes I find apalling! If you go on to read about the child abuse it does not just say teaching these things is child abuse but i goes on to say means of which the children are being deprived of a good education and personally I think that they are being deprived of a portion of their life. The child abuse stems from telling children they must be good or they will bur and be tormented and tortured for the rest of their life and promising physical gold streets and physical mansions in the “spiritual” heaven if they are good.
Please i encourage all who read this to frequently visit http://www.richarddawkins.net/home to see many interesting arguments.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:59 am
YourTube has a clip of Richard Dawkins appearance on Bill O’Reilly’s show for anyone who is interested.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Dawkins is a great man. The most difficult part for the ignorant believers is that they don’t want to believe that they were apes 500,000 years ago and the fact that they are mortal. We belonged to Eretus Homos 2-5 million years ago. It is crystal clear that we were apes and hundreds of skulls extracted so far, all prove this 100%.
Religious people are all suffering from blind eyes, ignorance and lack of evidence. This is all rooted from human selfishness. Can you tell me the one single function of human spirit for your God’s sake? It is all your brain… Wake up! There is no God!
May 16th, 2010 at 4:12 am
Awesome webpage, exactly where did you get the design template?