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?
No related posts.
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?
well done sidfaiwu…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…)
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.
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))
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.
@spanky
i’ve read your post, thx for putting effort into this. i’ll try to post a response by tonight.
@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.
[...] 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. [...]
copying to the new thread for easy reference, no need to reply here. I crossed the now reply.
@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.
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.
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’.
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.
Outsider: Could you give me an example in which Dawkins has been irrationally hateful and bigot?
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?
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.
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.
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…
“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)?
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?
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
“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.
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
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.
YourTube has a clip of Richard Dawkins appearance on Bill O’Reilly’s show for anyone who is interested.
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!
Awesome webpage, exactly where did you get the design template?
with thanks for providing valuable info about the topic. I am a fan within your website. Keep up monetary management job.
You made various fine points there. I did a search on the subject matter and found mainly folks will agree with your blog.
Hello to all, how is everything, I think every
one is getting more from this web site, and your views are good designed for new
visitors.
Have a look at my web blog – [url=http://linkuj.adult.cz/search.php/all/Utente:AlyssaSell - WikiStrom]does quantrim really work[/url]