Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Have you ever read Dawkins?

Options
1…567911

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    I was reading unweaving the rainbow at the weekend at a couple of things struck me
    Should someone who vitupertates against Stephen Gould for imprecise poetics really have called a book 'the selfish gene'
    Dawkins lives by the remark that the reason acedemic infighting is so bitter is because the stakes are so small./


  • Options
    #243
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    We can postulate that until we figure out what set the laws of nature in motion. Then God migrates to the nearest convenient Gap in scientific knowledge.

    Or not. We can see God wherever we please, for HE has willed it so.


  • Options
    #244
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    mountainyman wrote: »
    Or not. We can see God wherever we please, for HE has willed it so.

    I think AH point is that religious people always place gods in the "gap".

    First they existed in the clouds, then in the heavens, then in space, then outside the universe.

    Gods were responsible for tons of little things, then we learned what was actually responsible for them and shifted our gods some where else. This process has gone on for centuries for everything. Now most people do not attribute our gods as being directly responsible for anything significant in our universe, as we have natural explanations for nearly everything. So our gods get shifted even further, they must have created the universe.

    Eventually we may very well discover a natural explanation for the formation of the universe, and religious people will shift God once again even further.

    One wonders at what point in this process people just go "yeah, gods don't exist"


  • Options
    #245
    Climate Expert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I think AH point is that religious people always place gods in the "gap".

    First they existed in the clouds, then in the heavens, then in space, then outside the universe.

    Gods were responsible for tons of little things, then we learned what was actually responsible for them and shifted our gods some where else. This process has gone on for centuries for everything. Now our gods are directly responsible for nothing significant in our universe, as we have natural explanations for nearly everything. So our gods get shifted even further, they must have created the universe.

    Eventually we may very well discover a natural explanation for the formation of the universe, and religious people will shift God once again even further.

    One wonders at what point in this process people just go "yeah, gods don't exist"
    True. The old school god of the ignorant was the best. He was creditied with everything. The modern god is pathetic, only filling in a tiny few gaps.


  • Options
    #246
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Wicknight wrote: »

    Eventually we may very well discover a natural explanation for the formation of the universe, and religious people will shift God once again even further.

    One wonders at what point in this process people just go "yeah, gods don't exist"

    Thats a very -well frankly my dear I dont really know - answer there Wicknight.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CDfm wrote: »
    Thats a very -well frankly my dear I dont really know - answer there Wicknight.

    well it comes down to priorities. If the priority is to find out what is the explanation for these phenomena, include the universe itself, then it seems reasonable that a person will eventually abandon the concept of gods, since so far it has never turned out to be "gods did it". that explanation is a throw back to a more ancient time when agency appeared to be a good explanation for things.

    on the other than, if the priority is to find some where for concepts like gods to live, then they are never abandoned, they are simply shifted around the place.

    so it is rather a bit pointless for two arguments coming from different initial starting priorities, to debate too much.


  • Options
    #248
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    Wicknight wrote: »
    well it comes down to priorities. If the priority is to find out what is the explanation for these phenomena, include the universe itself, then it seems reasonable that a person will eventually abandon the concept of gods, since so far it has never turned out to be "gods did it". that explanation is a throw back to a more ancient time when agency appeared to be a good explanation for things.

    on the other than, if the priority is to find some where for concepts like gods to live, then they are never abandoned, they are simply shifted around the place.

    so it is rather a bit pointless for two arguments coming from different initial starting priorities, to debate too much.
    The premise of the argument is flawed. God does not live in gaps. We need God just as much for the evolution of the Cabbage Moth as for the evolution of life, just as much for the orbit of the moon now as for the minute before the big bang.

    It isn't for you to tell me where God is and isn't and frankly I find your attitude insulting. That people in the past defined God in one way doesn't mean that I must use their definition, much less the half understood version of that definition that you put forth.


  • Options
    #249
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    We can postulate that until we figure out what set the laws of nature in motion. Then God migrates to the nearest convenient Gap in scientific knowledge.

    Bullsh1t you clearly haven't understood what I said.


  • Options
    #250
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    Wicknight wrote: »
    well it comes down to priorities. If the priority is to find out what is the explanation for these phenomena, include the universe itself, then it seems reasonable that a person will eventually abandon the concept of gods, since so far it has never turned out to be "gods did it"

    Totally illogical.


  • Options
    #251
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    Climate Expert wrote: »
    True. The old school god of the ignorant was the best. He was creditied with everything. The modern god is pathetic, only filling in a tiny few gaps.
    God does not require gaps. He is everywhere, that an explanation can be put forward which does not (or apparently does not) require God does not disprove his existence. God's existence is not disprovable it is experiential.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Climate Expert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    mountainyman wrote: »
    God does not require gaps. He is everywhere, that an explanation can be put forward which does not (or apparently does not) require God does not disprove his existence. God's existence is not disprovable it is experiential.
    God spoke to me in a dream and told me he didn't exist so I have it from the horses mouth.


  • Options
    #253
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Do you have a point, Climate expert? I must warn you that you are coming close to being the first person I get to pummel with my mod muscles.


  • Options
    #254
    Climate Expert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Do you have a point, Climate expert? I must warn you that you are coming close to being the first person I get to pummel with my mod muscles.

    Pummel away my friend but after you are done ask yourself, 'where is my God now'?


  • Options
    #255
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Climate Expert wrote: »
    Pummel away my friend but after you are done ask yourself, 'where is my God now'?

    That probably sounded witty in your head.

    Please read the charter and refrain from riling the locals.


  • Options
    #256
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    mountainyman wrote: »
    The premise of the argument is flawed. God does not live in gaps. We need God just as much for the evolution of the Cabbage Moth as for the evolution of life, just as much for the orbit of the moon now as for the minute before the big bang.

    Well no, we don't. That is the point. Evolution is a natural process. It occurs naturally given a suitable starting point (say self-replicating molecules) and is quite in line with the laws of chemistry.

    Now you can argue if you like that all the laws of nature are traced back to one point, the Big Bang, and that God must have been needed for that which set up the universe the way it is that lead to evolution and gravity etc etc.

    But then that is just what I'm talking about, moving God further and further.


  • Options
    #257
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    We can postulate that until we figure out what set the laws of nature in motion. Then God migrates to the nearest convenient Gap in scientific knowledge.
    AH for a know it all there are a lot of uncertainties in your answer:pac:


  • Options
    #258
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Wicknight wrote: »
    well it comes down to priorities. If the priority is to find out what is the explanation for these phenomena, include the universe itself, then it seems reasonable that a person will eventually abandon the concept of gods, since so far it has never turned out to be "gods did it". that explanation is a throw back to a more ancient time when agency appeared to be a good explanation for things.

    on the other than, if the priority is to find some where for concepts like gods to live, then they are never abandoned, they are simply shifted around the place.

    so it is rather a bit pointless for two arguments coming from different initial starting priorities, to debate too much.
    So it is quite right to postulate that, given Dawkins writings on the subject of religion are largely derivative and contain nothing original that, reading him is an utter waste of time.

    Which is where I was when I started.


  • Options
    #259
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    ^^^

    Well no. 'Cause there's lots of people who will have read some of his arguments for the first time.

    Like I said before it's a good introduction to the subject, it introduced me to a few authors and topics I hadn't considered before.


  • Options
    #260
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    studiorat wrote: »
    ^^^

    Well no. 'Cause there's lots of people who will have read some of his arguments for the first time.

    Like I said before it's a good introduction to the subject, it introduced me to a few authors and topics I hadn't considered before.
    Thats what I said before - it hasnt added to the knowledge of the subject and his books are largely just an introduction.

    So Dawkins should not be accorded the Cult Leader like status he currently enjoys.


  • Options
    #261
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    CDfm wrote: »
    Thats what I said before - it hasnt added to the knowledge of the subject and his books are largely just an introduction.

    So Dawkins should not be accorded the Cult Leader like status he currently enjoys.

    No, no, no. You said it was an "utter waste of time" reading him. In fact you stated that's where you started!

    That's why I said it was a good introduction.

    BTW you should check out Dan Dennett, a much better candidate for "atheist cult leader", he even looks the part. Dawkins is just too dorky lookin'!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    studiorat wrote: »

    BTW you should check out Dan Dennett, a much better candidate for "atheist cult leader", he even looks the part. Dawkins is just too dorky lookin'!

    Too nerdy by half - and goes for tea with a Bishop.


  • Options
    #263
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    CDfm wrote: »
    Too nerdy by half - and goes for tea with a Bishop.

    No thanks! I just had a meat tea in the cannons house!


  • Options
    #264
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CDfm wrote: »
    So it is quite right to postulate that, given Dawkins writings on the subject of religion are largely derivative and contain nothing original that, reading him is an utter waste of time.

    well it depends on what you consider a waste of time.

    I'm currently reading Brian Greene's book on the nature of the universe "The Fabric of the Cosmos"

    It is wonderfully fascinating and enjoyable. Of course it isn't as in depth as actually earning a PhD in Physics and reading all the original physics papers that form the back bone of the last 400 years of physics that he talks about in his book.

    But then I wouldn't, because of that, call it a waste of time. You might though. Again it comes down to priorities. A lot of people think reading anything but the Bible is a waste of time.


  • Options
    #265
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    A lot of people think reading anything but the Bible is a waste of time.

    Really? Where would I find such people? I would be interested in talking to them, but I've never actually met anyone who held such a view.


  • Options
    #266
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    PDN wrote: »
    Really? Where would I find such people? I would be interested in talking to them, but I've never actually met anyone who held such a view.

    I'd like to meet this person too. ;)


  • Options
    #267
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    PDN wrote: »
    Really? Where would I find such people? I would be interested in talking to them, but I've never actually met anyone who held such a view.

    Dawkins doesnt seem to be very popular - everybody seems to want to read something else- even Wicknight.


  • Options
    #268
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    studiorat wrote: »
    No thanks! I just had a meat tea in the cannons house!
    Any rashers ?


  • Options
    #269
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    CDfm wrote: »
    Dawkins doesnt seem to be very popular - everybody seems to want to read something else- even Wicknight.

    Well variety is the spice of life. :)


  • Options
    #270
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Well variety is the spice of life. :)
    You fessing up to reading the bible? Liking rasher sandwichs?

    Dont ever go near Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintainance -for some the 60s never ended they just go on and on and on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    And for others it would appear time of the old testament never ended either.


Advertisement