Richard Dawkins

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks for your comments, Nice to see there are some open minded folks on WP.

I don't have much in objection to Dawkins underlying premise that primitive man largely interpreted the environment he found using whatever faculties they could use and perhaps conjured up their own primitive interpretations that has evolved into modern religions. Where I find his stance objectionable is his reliance on pure skepticism to simply debunk everything that is existentialist, spiritual or supernatural. This is (not surprisingly) the stock in trade used by 99.9% of university trained scientists. You simply debunk unexplained phenomena without actually examining the available data with an open mind.

Do you know that porn is the number one use for the internet, looks like the bible has some competition...

Last edited by cyberdad on 07 Oct 2013, 6:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Haha true you can see my point though, a lot of people clearly think he makes very worthwhile points.

It might be the number one use I'm not sure, although the fact that porn takes up the majority of the web is a myth. It is supposedly spam mail and data.

I suppose so although some people might say that the reason such scientific methods are utilized at universities so often is due to the fact that it works. We have used science for a while now and we know that it is highly successful. Everything we do is virtually founded on its principles. The laptops we use are founded upon scientific principles. I know what you mean though there is a certain dogma within Higher education in which anything that is thought outside the box is instantly dismissed, which I agree isn't right. There are some good universities out there though. I must say, I hate it when people go 'education is just about brain-washing you!' Yes some of it is about brainwashing you and then some of it is about enlightening you and bringing you to the attentions of the facts of our universe that should amaze and astonish. The university I am at the moment is allowing me to do my thesis about the positives of shamanic drug-use and how it juxtaposes our western attitudes to such substances so there are some open-minded universities. The John Hopkins university also has scientists that are working with magic mushrooms and the positive psychological effects. I agree, its not ufos and aliens but that is progress. The other thing is (and I can kind of agree with the 99.9% of university trained scientists with this one) is that if there isn't evidence to prove or disprove certain phenomenon like UFOs, then if that means you believe in them then surely you therefore believe in range of other things for which you have no-evidence. This of course can lead to certain forms of mental illness in which individuals become distressed due to a belief in something that is non-existent. Of course, there are eye witness reports of UFOs and so forth but that is evidence of people seeing them and not them actually existing. I agree, keep an open mind, but that should not be synonymous with believe anything because it cannot be disproven otherwise you might as well not go outside just because gravity MIGHT not exist outside anymore. Saying this, please know that I AGREE with you, I AGREE completely. If someone is dismissing something like ufos and has not even considered the evidence, then they are being dogmatic and no more religious than a Christian and they should accept that they need to look at the fact and judge the hypothesis once that is done. If they do that and they still do not believe, that is absolutely fair enough but they should at least take the necessary steps to come to that conclusion.

I don't see how it could be proven, but I think he's right but that in many cases, the illness is relatively benign.

I would certainly say that some of the stuff that goes on in the most religiously fundamentalist countries and communities is a mental illness.



Can you give an example?

Yes I'm a fan of Dawkins and enjoy his books on evolution. He's a great communicator of science but on the topic of religion he's very much confused and comes across as deeply muddled.

I respect him, and he seems like a nice enough guy to meet in person, but I don't generally like him.

He sometimes comes off as arrogant, and completely uncaring to people's beliefs. Makes sense considering he's convinced that said beliefs are completely untrue and detrimental to society, but still, he seems to forget that there are people behind these religions, people with emotions, people who may not agree, and aren't all bad.

He makes his point a damn sight better than anyone on the opposite end of the argument (for example, westboro baptist church) but he forgets something; What if the mysterious force present in some form in all relgious beliefs exists outside of our universe's rules? I'm of the belief that to claim you know anything for sure about the mystery of life is simply arrogant, albeit a forgivable, even distinctly human arrogance that came with our supposed conquest of this planet.

It is too vast and ancient for humans to grasp so easily, I think. And in that respect, I have to take the same stance to him and other hardcore atheists that I take to any other belief system (or lack of) that doesn't harm anyone; I respect your opinion, but I do not think you or anyone else can know for sure, or should be saying that you know for sure.

"Well, I'm not sure he poked fun at it, I am aware he thought it was illogical, however you would have to find the exact quote to prove that he was being disrespectful of such a belief. Well obviously the two are not synonymous or analogous since there is empirical evidence that the big bang existed"

As far as poking fun, I read the book and that is my conclusion. I'm not sure what you want.

As far as the Big Bang having "existed", unless you can explain what it is that went "bang", and where it came from, it is no more scientific than the Hindu cosmology. Both rest on absolutely nothing. It's a logical paradox called creation ex nihilo, or something from nothing.

No doubt, but I have to go by reputation here. If somebody's reputation is primarily as an atheist -- rather than, say, a philosopher who is incidentally an atheist -- I'm going to assume that atheism is the focus of his writings. Of course a reputation might be wrong.



And another book they won't read is going to change their minds?

Every attempt to provide a rational foundation for theism has been demolished long ago, most of them centuries ago. People believe in a deity not because they have thought about the issue carefully and dispassionately, but out of mere faith, usually adopted in childhood and never questioned -- not out of reason, but in defiance of reason. Many find comfort in religion, and some are no doubt inspired by religion to be better people -- but at its root it is irrational. And reasoning with the irrational is like administering medicine to the dead.

Paraphrasing Nietzsche, to be a professional atheist is to assume the function of a fly-swatter. A useful implement, to be sure, but as far as I'm concerned that particular fly has kicked the bucket, shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.

Put it this way: I am not going to expend my limited reading time on an entire book telling me why I should not believe in leprechauns. I already don't believe in leprechauns, have never heard a rational reason to believe in leprechauns, and barring an extraordinary personal experience will never be tempted to believe in leprechauns.

I agree with you and disagree with. I agree with you to some extent that some people are just stubborn and arrogant in their ideologies and no matter how much you provide rational evidence to contradict the idea of a higher deity, they will reject it. They are not fluid in their beliefs at all and will cling onto them like a sea anemone clinging to a rock even though the tide of reason is far stronger. Saying this however, just because the rational foundations of theism were abolished centuries back, which I don't think they were, there is an ever increasing amount of scientific evidence piling up and if that evidence was enough to make people stop believe centuries back then I believe that such empirical evidence can have the same effect today. In fact, it is. If the evidence at hand had no effect on people's religious beliefs, there would be no decline in it, however as we are seeing through statistics(although they are not always objective, though it is the best we can do to get close to the truth) that more and more people are becoming critical of their religion and because of the fresh array of evidence are choosing to reject religious doctrines. I agree with you, if someone believes and there mind cannot be changed, then leave it, especially if they are harming no-one nor themselves but there are particular people who are willing to change themselves on the basis of a book. To say "oh they just don't believe, a book won't help', I find defeatists. Richard Dawkins himself was a christian until he read the origin of species and Jimmy Carr, the comedian, was also Roman Catholic until he read the Selfish Gene. Please do not think I am having a go at you. Sorry if you think what I am saying is stupid

I wanted a quote but okay fair enough, if that is your conclusion I shall accept that there must have been a reason at to why you thought such a thing. Well it is more scientific I would say because the Hindu mythology accepts that it knows where the world comes from and does not need empirical evidence to test its hypothesis while science is now trying to find an answer as opposed to resting on a fairy tale. I understand the paradox however as I said, it wasn't really from nothing. The problem is once you enter such a realm of physics, you encounter phenomenon that almost transcends the boundaries of language but anyway....It was not really nothing, it was nothing in the sense that there was no space and time and since space and time there was no matter since space-time is a necessary dimensionality of matter, however to say there was nothing is a linguistic quirk. There was something there called a singularity, it is just whether you can call it nothing or something. According to Quantum Physics, I suppose it could be considered both.

What if the mysterious force present in some form in all relgious beliefs exists outside of our universe's rules?

In the words of Wittgenstein, 'Whereof one cannot speak, one should therefore be silent.'

YAAAAAAY

I'm not sure why you would rather have an argument from authority in the form of a quote rather than solid reasoning. What is especially ironic is that religion rests upon authority (faith) rather than reasoning. If you must have a quote, I can recommend doing some research on creatio ex nihilo. It is hardly something I made up.

As far as the Big Bang theory being empirical, by definition it is not. Since empirical evidence means evidence coming from something concrete and observable, and you have not been able to explain what it was that went "bang", the Big Bang theory is just as much conjecture as the Hindu--or Christian--etiological mythology. The Big Bang theory is not scientific; it is the etiological myth of liberalism.

I want to know what came before something, how something came from nothing, and who or what created that something. Again, there is no logical answer, and likely never will be. This is one of the reasons I would never call myself an atheist; it is presumptuous.

As far as your quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein goes, the problem is that the human mind did not evolve to deal with absolutes, but to solve concrete problems. But naturally, humans want to know how their world came to be. This curiosity is the impetus for modern cosmology, which, again, is logically no more satisfactory than any other etiological mythology.

I wanted a quote about him mocking the cosmological argument, not about the cosmological argument itself. It had nothing to do with 'arguments with authority', I would have just liked evidence for him being mocking about it since all I know he might have presented quite a rational and logical argument devoid of any patronizing tone but anyway, there you go. Well there is empirical evidence for the big bang occurring, is there evidence for how and why it occurred? No, you are right and in this sense it like the cosmological story you presented, however the difference is that science is looking and a mythology is not. As for the case about it being presumptuous. I do not see how it is being presumptuous. Science does not claim to understand the big bang fully, it is trying to but never does it admit that it has done so. The point is we don't know but personally for me the fact that I do not know does not mean that therefore I should label myself as a theist. There are lots of things that science did not think it would ever get its head around. We at one point did not think we would understand how got here biologically speaking and now we know- evolution and the structure of dna and the ability to replicate itself as a biological technology. In your view, before we understood this, that would have meant that a mythology, like god, had just as much validity as any scientific explanation and that it would never be discovered. However now we know how biologically speaking we got here. It seems arrogant therefore to assume that such a thing can never be discovered. It also implies that a god is one of ever-receding visibility. I am only trying to have a debate. I feel like there is some aspect of annoyance in what you are saying, I may be wrong though.