Originally posted by Digi
Well, it's natural to see more media coverage around the release of his book, which has now been out for a while. But taking that and making a broad generalization like this, with no evidence, is flatly wrong. Besides, religious beliefs aren't fashion fads...Dawkins may be in the spotlight less in this country nowadays, but the percentages of atheists, militant or otherwise, will be roughly the same regardless.
Where did I make the claims you claim I make?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Just that he compares believe in God to a Delusion or something else?
sort of, that was more tongue-in-cheek than serious
looking back, "Does Dawkins misrepresent science" isn't quite the argument I want to get into, as, to be fair, I can't think of anything specific he has said, of a scientific nature, that I would question.
My major problem with Dawkins is that he believes in atheism. He would self identify as an "atheist" as more than just a quick reference to his beliefs. To me, atheism was as much about rejecting the hirearchical nature of religious institutions as it was about rejecting the dogma.
The short answer is that I feel he thinks that he knows what is right. Like, I am of the opinion that God doesn't exist, and I believe it to be true, etc. However, I understand enough about human psychology to know that the sense of "truth" I feel is a byproduct of the physical pathways that I process information through, and thus, could be experienced by each person in really any circumstance. Dawkins doesn't present this in his work. He understands only one interpretation of reality, and generalizes this accross individuals, as if the unique contexts which produced his brain were the most proper, or "truthiest".
To me, this is as bad as what religions do, in fact, imho, it is the worst thing that religions do.
(I hope that makes sense, I'm really sketchy and trying to abbreviate some weird opinions of mine)
He doesnt reject that, he is a firerce discussor of what he feels his a religious experience in the einsteinian sense (Using the phrase "God does not play Dice" god is not to be confused with a belief confirmation, just his take on a concept in Quantum theory he disagreed on.), and seeks to account for things like the sense of religiousness in atheistic scientists in himself and even like Einstein himself.
Scientifically explaining this all and the Darwinian origins of morals, belief in god and promoting awareness of the damage it does when the "get em when they're young mentality of religion - branding kids with a religious affliation before the kid has even thought seriously about "is there a god" etc. And shows that rejection of organised religion neednt shut you off from love, and perception of warmth in the universe, a moral good of your own etc.
He still does good work and is active on the lecture circuit in universities over the world and stuff. Loads of stuff on youtube.
Hitchens is the man that if Q turned up and said "right, human f**ks, send out your best and most knowlegable arguer your species has now, or youre all dead now" and he was to debate for our species' continuation, I'd sleep soundly that he was up at the podium.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Where did I make the claims you claim I make?
Right here:
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I feel Dawkins has had his day...seriously he is barely around any more, it's like Militant Atheism died overnight...I guess now the republicans are out of office there is less of an appetite for it. Perhaps?
...also, lulz at the way this thread has gone. No topic with Dawkins can stay focused for long. Such is his influence, and ability to polarize people.
Not gonna argue this, since it's going to be more frustrating than productive. Your post was a generalization based on a hunch. There's like 2 sentences in the post, so I don't need to spell it out for you. It wasn't a statement of absolute fact, but it makes the rationale behind it no less absurd.
You'll likely clarify yourself to make it seem much more reasonable, and I have no doubt that we'd come to some sort of agreement about it after playing semantics for a few posts.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Hitchens is the man that if Q turned up and said "right, human f**ks, send out your best and most knowlegable arguer your species has now, or youre all dead now" and he was to debate for our species' continuation, I'd sleep soundly that he was up at the podium.
No, Q would probably kill us all or force Dawkins to sleep with him 😐
Originally posted by inimalistI see where you are coming from, though I am not sure if that is actually an attribute that I see in Dawkins. It is true that he gets painted 8and perhaps paints himself) as a radical, no other possibility atheist, but everything I read and especially what I saw in videos of him, gave the impression to me that he, quite to the contrary, is very thoughtful and aware of other possibilities.
sort of, that was more tongue-in-cheek than seriouslooking back, "Does Dawkins misrepresent science" isn't quite the argument I want to get into, as, to be fair, I can't think of anything specific he has said, of a scientific nature, that I would question.
My major problem with Dawkins is that he believes in atheism. He would self identify as an "atheist" as more than just a quick reference to his beliefs. To me, atheism was as much about rejecting the hirearchical nature of religious institutions as it was about rejecting the dogma.
The short answer is that I feel he thinks that he knows what is right. Like, I am of the opinion that God doesn't exist, and I believe it to be true, etc. However, I understand enough about human psychology to know that the sense of "truth" I feel is a byproduct of the physical pathways that I process information through, and thus, could be experienced by each person in really any circumstance. Dawkins doesn't present this in his work. He understands only one interpretation of reality, and generalizes this accross individuals, as if the unique contexts which produced his brain were the most proper, or "truthiest".
To me, this is as bad as what religions do, in fact, imho, it is the worst thing that religions do.
(I hope that makes sense, I'm really sketchy and trying to abbreviate some weird opinions of mine)
I assume you don't mean to suggest that knowledge of the reasons behind the certainty we feel should stop us from supporting a topic altogether?
Originally posted by Digi
Not gonna argue this, since it's going to be more frustrating than productive. Your post was a generalization based on a hunch. There's like 2 sentences in the post, so I don't need to spell it out for you. It wasn't a statement of absolute fact, but it makes the rationale behind it no less absurd.You'll likely clarify yourself to make it seem much more reasonable, and I have no doubt that we'd come to some sort of agreement about it after playing semantics for a few posts.
Someone isn't falling for it anymore...
Originally posted by Bardock42
Like what statements?
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."
Its things like this that bug me. Dawkins is quick to point out the flaws of organized religion. I agree with him there are many. The problem is most of these are endemic to systems (governments, corporations, even science itself) and not religion in particular. Dawkins actively characterizes religion and faith and then dismisses it.
Referring to people to adhere to religion as "delusional" is way over the line. Yes, some of them are. But all of them are not. Dawkins consistantly sacrifices enlightened understanding of science for firebrand athiesm.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
As a professor of evolutionary sceince, basing alot of his rebuttals for religious explainations on his Darwinian and other sciences, Id say he fits the very definiotion of a man who knows what he is talking about.
I disagree. I don't doubt any of Dawkin's advancements in evolutionary theory. I've mentioned before a lot of them are great (though like hsi views on religion he has a bit of a totalitarian view on the dominance of his ideas). He knows his science, he doesn't know religion. Thus he can't construct a good a dialogue on the relationship between the two.
Dawkins' problem is that science doesn't directly contradict religion. By claiming it does so, he simply CREATES confilct between the two. He is British and doesn't understand a lot of the work that goes on between science and religion here in the US (I'll claim we're more adept at this because we actually deal with large parts of the population (even majorities) that actively deny evolution in any form). He ends up damaging more than he explains.
Science has disproved aspects of religion (if one can ever disprove anything) and I'll agree with that. However, LOGIC, not science are the only mental exercises (and the ones I use) to contradict principles like God. Science can provide evidence, but on these matters, it can't get us from A to C...only A to B. This is progress no doubt, but its not an achievement...and Dawkins clearly thinks his work is such an achievement. I'ver heard him say so in person.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
But in an age where Religion has so much power in politics and worldpower, it really should be able to stand up to Dawkins level scrutiny, I feel....and it doesnt.
Frankly...I dont feel religion doesn't have any more power than it had...and it probably has less. There are always nutters, religion is constantly in a state of decline and revival. Some aspects fo religion endure, but a lot of the dogma and details have fallen to the wayside over the years.
...and religion has never stood up to stcrutiny...Dawkins aside.
Heheheheheheheh I wont argue that.
There are parts of the world where religion is VERY MUCH in control.
And he does, I admit speak out on how he'd personally like so see the role of religion reduced, but he doesnt impose his stuff on folks.
So the totalitarian tag may be a little loose fitting here.
And you wont find anything as totalitarian as the highest levels of organised religion.
Why dont people run for presidential office as known athiests?
What about the attempts of the UN to pass a prisonable blasphemy law..?
The catholic church....Mafia/Institutional Paedophilia.
The perpetuation of the Palestinian and Israeli conflict.
There were talks of introducing Sharia law in the UK.
Religion is permeated into all the contriolling political institutions at an almost genetic level now..
God told George Bush to invade Iraq.
And blesses exclusively the united states of America.
Zionism.
They teach creationism in schools.
The biggest superpower in the world cannot seem to tell church from state.
They use religion to get hijackers to fly planes into buildings.
Its this blind faith of "next life rewards" promised by religion, that caused the WTC to fall.
Dawkins attacks blind faith and encourages reason and logic.
He conceeds that religion is comforting, as a value, but not true.
Which is fair enough.
What Dawkins doesnt understand about hardcore faith organisations, he learns. That he is friends with Hitchens and Hitchens is the guy with the superior understanding of religious history/ability to lock horns with even the most fanatical of believers and expose them in their own backyard.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Why dont people run for presidential office as known athiests?
Because most people are not atheists and most people won't vote for people that are very different from them. Atheists also have reputations as jerks.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
What about the attempts of the UN to pass a blasphemy law?
That never passed . . .
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
The perpetuation of the Palestinian and Israeli conflict.
You mean that conflict that's much more complex than simple religious differences?
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
There were talks of introducing Sharia law in the UK.
That never passed . . .
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Religion is permeated into all the contriolling political institutions at an almost genetic level now..
So is the ability to see, for much the same reason.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
God told George Bush to invade Iraq.
And blesses exclusively the united states of America.Zionism.
They teach creationism in schools.
They use religion to get hijackers to fly planes into buildings.
Its this blind faith of "next life rewards" promised by religion, that caused the WTC to fall.
All fair points.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Dawkins attacks blind faith and encourages reason and logic.
He conceeds that religion is comforting, as a value, but not true.
Which is fair enough.What Dawkins doesnt understand about hardcore faith organisations, he learns. That he is friends with Hitchens and Hitchens is the guy with the superior understanding of religious history/ability to lock horns with even the most fanatical of believers and expose them in their own backyard.
On the other hand he seems quite happy to characterize faith for his own purposes.
Sure. They have this because the religious are the governing power.
So of course the atheists are jerks.
That they tried to pass that law was dangerous enough.
That conflict is of course, bigger than just religion in its origin, for sure, its just endlessly perpetuated by the religious argument.
Certain faiths, yes. Blind ones.
Reasonable, evidence based faith is something that he is in favour of.
Heres some Hitchens.... worth hearing the man out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjscqKv3240&NR=1
This is good. "Why religion poisons everything"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1lTR8V90qU
I actually think that its less religion that "poisions everything" and more ignorance and intolerance...qualites expressed by all factions of people, including many athiests (re Dawkins, Hitchens).
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
The biggest superpower in the world cannot seem to tell church from state.
This is the sort of ignorance that I'm referring too.
Originally posted by Ordo
Referring to people to adhere to religion as "delusional" is way over the line. Yes, some of them are. But all of them are not. Dawkins consistantly sacrifices enlightened understanding of science for firebrand athiesm.
Why is it "way" over the line? I'm a Theist and I can still admit that my belief in god is not based on physical evidence and his existence can't be proven. So wouldn't that fit the dictionary definition of "delusional"?--a persistent belief despite evidence.
----
On your last post: Hitchens may be intolerant and beligerent, but he's not ignorant. I own God is not Great, and he definitely knows his history. Dawkins is a celebrated scientist and that's apparantly his only forte, because Hitchens totally whoops him in relgious history and scriptural knowledge. Hitchens knows the Bible, Koran and Bhagavad Gita like the back of his hand.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why is it "way" over the line? I'm a Theist and I can still admit that my belief in god is not based on physical evidence and his existence can't be proven. So wouldn't that fit the dictionary definition of "delusional"?--a persistent belief despite evidence.
Er, yeah.
Delusion is belief when evidence contradicts you. Faith is belief when there is no evidence one way or another. If you've been given what you consider valid evidence that God doesn't exist and still believe that's delusion.
Originally posted by Bardock42
but everything I read and especially what I saw in videos of him, gave the impression to me that he, quite to the contrary, is very thoughtful and aware of other possibilities.
Actually this is kind of correct. I saw him in person and he described himself like this.
On a scale (of I think it was) 0 to 7, 0 being god definitively exists and 7 being god definitively does NOT exist, he claimed he was a 6. I would claim the same.
However, this personal description of himself (which he has obviously repeated) is often at odds with some of his other statements which seem from more of the perspective of a 7.
I've thought about how to take this, is he just covering his arse? is he really serious about being a 6? I don't know what that answer is, but I have found him too clumsy to distinguish between the two in a good number of his arguments. You're right that everyone perceives him as a 7. That is part of his problem.
he has successful ones (I'm obviously athiest and we have to agree on some basic SOMETHING lol). However, if he spent more time making the teapot argument, we'd be better off that with his current attitude.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why is it "way" over the line? I'm a Theist and I can still admit that my belief in god is not based on physical evidence and his existence can't be proven. So wouldn't that fit the dictionary definition of "delusional"?--a persistent belief despite evidence.----
On your last post: Hitchens may be intolerant and beligerent, but he's not ignorant. I own God is not Great, and he definitely knows his history. Dawkins is a celebrated scientist and that's apparantly his only forte, because Hitchens totally whoops him in relgious history and scriptural knowledge. Hitchens knows the Bible, Koran and Bhagavad Gita like the back of his hand.
1. Dictionary definitions suck. They are inadequate. People like Hitchens and Dawkins often equate this "delusion" with a lack of mental faculties or even mental illness. I wont deny that some people that are religious are delusional, but I feel that most aren't. Blanket calling them delusional to me is counterproductive. I often equate it to Bush's use of the terms "terrorism" or "Islamic facism/extremism." Its just a false analysis driven by shallow facts, broad generalizations, and an accusatory ideology.
Anyway, on the last part. I'd simply say that just because you understand religious books, doesnt mean you understand religion. There is a lot more to that system, that mentality, than texts.