Richard Dawkins

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Yes you could argue that, but that is not 'religion'.

So Dawkins would have been more correct by saying some people's interpretation of religion teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world. On the other hand there are far more people to whom religion teaches that there is always something you don't understand and to try to get your head round it.

Thank you, that's all that was meant. It's not actually possible to make any statement that applies to 'religion' as if it was totally homogeneous, at most you can only speak about a certain subset of religious people who interpret their religion a certain way and Dawkins of course knows this as well as you do. So yes there are religious people who continue to search for answers despite being religious but there are also those who interpret their religion in such a way as to be satisfied with not understanding the world, accepting that "god did it" is enough for them when if they didn't have that easy answer to fall back on they might well investigate further. I'm if Dawkins knew this thread was going to happen I'm sure he would have added a disclaimer to his statement just like the one I added to every post I ever wrote commenting on the behaviour of Lisbon no voters.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

I promise that I will.

I will refrain from going into the A&A forum and saying stuff like "Atheists believe X, Y & Z, therefore they do A, B & C" when such statements would be completely untruthful.

Fair is fair.

Yes PDN I was being untruthful. Of course I was, sure I'm a fundamentalist atheist idiotic buffoon, what else would I do :rolleyes:

beat root

Richard dawkins may be a knob, but he only preaches the facts of scienctific discovery i.e. contstantly tested, contstantly evolving, constantly peer reviewed and open to new discoveries. This not arrogant. Proffessing something for which there is absolutely no evidence, not a shred and expecting people to believe, often accompanied by the threat of alienation or violence if they do not, which organised religion has history of can more justifiably be termed arrogant

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Regardless, there are people who do seek the answers but they find them in religion, where accepting on faith that god did certain things is considered a virtue.

sorry, what?

Was that meant to rebute my point somehow? or was it meant as an expression of the obvious?

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

You honestly don't understand it? Seriously??

Do you normally expect satire in, say, documentarys?
Do you normally expect satire in scientific explorations?

...or was your inital intention to suggest that Dawkins "The God Delusion" is in fact a comedy?

Are you being serious ... ?

First of all, I think parts of it are very funny, yes. I wouldn't call it a comedy but it certainly is funny. I remember laughing out loud more than once

Secondly, I certainly wouldn't call The God Delusion a "documentary" or a "scientific exploration", that would be ridiculous. It at the most a popular science book but I wouldn't even got that far.

Thirdly since when do science books and being funny mutually exclusive? Have you ever read Bill Bryson?

And lastly you didn't say documentary, you said "book". I've never read a Simpsons book, as if that is supposed to convey that what you mean was that The God Delusion is a scientific study becuase it is in a book, or that if the simpsons was in a book it would be a documentary??.

Either that was an over sight on your part or you think all books are serious. There are actually Simpsons books BTW, you telling me you haven't read one hardly conveys the position you stated above.

So yeah, excuse me for not understanding your utterly cryptic point :rolleyes:

Zulu

beat root wrote: »

Richard dawkins may be a knob

Why is he a knob?

he only preaches the facts of scienctific discovery i.e. contstantly tested, contstantly evolving, constantly peer reviewed and open to new discoveries. This not arrogant.

I, personally, don't find his arrgance stems from the facts he presents.
It's the manner in how he chooses to present them that makes him arrogant (in my opinion); it's his tone.

Proffessing something for which there is absolutely no evidence, not a shred and expecting people to believe, often accompanied by the threat of alienation or violence if they do not, which organised religion has history of can more justifiably be termed arrogant

Religions claim to have evidence in the form of bibles etc., but that asside I agree whole heartedly - that however does not excuse his arrogance. One wrong doesn't cancel another.

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

sorry, what?

Was that meant to rebute my point somehow? or was it meant as an expression of the obvious?

Well yes. You said that some people seek out answers and some don't, that it has nothing to do with religion. But there are people do seek answers and when they find them in religion they stop looking when they otherwise might not have. To mention an example I gave previously, why would someone who believes that morality has been given to us by god and is inherent to our soul have any interest in evolutionary psychology which is well on its way to explaining how morality evolved all on its own with no divine intervention necessary?

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you being serious ... ? ...

So yeah, excuse me for not understanding your utterly cryptic point :rolleyes:

And here we go again. :rolleyes:

There's no need to apologise for not understanding what I meant. Deliberately misrepresenting and choosing to ignore the salient point however is rude & ignorant.

The point I was making was that the God Delusion isn't comedy & that I'd expect satire in a "Simpsons" book.

But you knew that already. :rolleyes:

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But there are people do seek answers and when they find them in religion they stop looking when they otherwise might not have.

I don't really buy that to be honest, if one was really interested in persuing an answer they wouldn't give up so readily.

I mean I want to drive formula 1 cars, but I'll find a reason to satisify why I won't persue that any futher. Realistically though, if I really wanted to...

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

But you knew that already. :rolleyes:

I swear to every god you believe in I hadn't a clue that was your point, I don't think anyone did.

How I was supposed to get that the God Delusion isn't a comedy (I still don't follow what point yo think that makes, are you saying the God Delusion isn't funny because it isn't a comedy) because you said you haven't read a Simpsons book is beyond me.

sometimes i wonder do you do this on purpose

But now your point is clear (hallellua) are you saying Dawkins can't be funny in the God Delusion because it isn't a comedy? Really?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Thank you, that's all that was meant. It's not actually possible to make any statement that applies to 'religion' as if it was totally homogeneous, at most you can only speak about a certain subset of religious people who interpret their religion a certain way and Dawkins of course knows this as well as you do..

Does he though. He tends to tar everyone with the one brush when it comes to being religious. So when he says religion teaches people to do x, he is mistaken (at least when it comes to majority of forms of Christianity). A minority of people interpreting something in one way is not the same as the religion teaching that thing.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So yes there are religious people who continue to search for answers despite being religious but there are also those who interpret their religion in such a way as to be satisfied with not understanding the world, accepting that "god did it" is enough for them when if they didn't have that easy answer to fall back on they might well investigate further...

Or maybe they wouldn't. I'd guess the many simply wouldn't be bothered, just like many people, religious and not, aren't bothered by not understanding things in the world.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm if Dawkins knew this thread was going to happen I'm sure he would have added a disclaimer to his statement just like the one I added to every post I ever wrote commenting on the behaviour of Lisbon no voters.

Apparently he did, or tried to. It didn't stop richarddawkins.net putting that quote out on a stand-alone basis. Dawkins has to know threads like this are going to happen, that's his goal at the end of the day.

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

I don't really buy that to be honest, if one was really interested in persuing an answer they wouldn't give up so readily.

I mean I want to drive formula 1 cars, but I'll find a reason to satisify why I won't persue that any futher. Realistically though, if I really wanted to...

The thing is that as far as they're concerned they're not giving up, they think they have the answer, e.g. the reason we have a sense of right and wrong is that god has given it to us. When you believe in god all of these explanations make perfect sense and are very satisfying and even comforting but when you don't, all you're seeing is someone shoving a god into every gap in their knowledge in lieu of an explanation. I recall hearing a story (can't remember much details unfortunately) of a brilliant scientist who was raised by fundamentalist christians and wholeheartedly believed in god. One day he sat down with a bible and tore out all the parts that he would have to stop believing if he was to accept scientific explanations for these phenomena and he was left with precious little. He had to make a choice between his scientific career and his god and he chose his god. He gave up his career because it conflicted with his religious beliefs. Now I know that such things are rare and people can be both excellent scientists and christians but the fact that this ever happens is a tragedy

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I recall hearing a story (can't remember much details unfortunately) of a brilliant scientist who was raised by fundamentalist christians and wholeheartedly believed in god. One day he sat down with a bible and tore out all the parts that he would have to stop believing if he was to accept scientific explanations for these phenomena and he was left with precious little. He had to make a choice between his scientific career and his god and he chose his god. He gave up his career because it conflicted with his religious beliefs. Now I know that such things are rare and people can be both excellent scientists and christians but the fact that this ever happens is a tragedy

So he had a choice and what might have been is a tragedy for you. I wonder if you asked the scientist himself if he felt he made the right decision or not what he would say? Do you think it's a tragedy simply because he didn't fulfill his potential as a scientist?

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Does he though. He tends to tar everyone with the one brush when it comes to being religious. So when he says religion teaches people to do x, he is mistaken (at least when it comes to majority of forms of Christianity). A minority of people interpreting something in one way is not the same as the religion teaching that thing.

I know that. Dawkins knows that. The mud I just scraped off the bottom of my shoe knows that. It is painfully obvious not only that this statement cannot apply to every religious person who has ever lived at all times in their lives in all areas of their lives, just as it is painfully obvious that it would be impossible to make any statement whatsoever that could fit those criteria. Instead of talking about all of the exceptions to his statement that every one of us knows exists and branding him a liar because of it, you should take the statement as it was intended and talk about all of the cases that aren't exceptions. This is like someone who is on trial for a crime talking about all of the times when he didn't commit crimes as if that somehow negates the times that he did. Religion teaches this. Not every religion, not all religion, not all interpretations of religion, not all incarnations of religion, but religion nonetheless. If you think that his statement does not apply to your particular brand of religion then that's absolutely fantastic and feel free to ignore everything he says. If you pointed it out to him I'm sure he would be the first to agree with you. But the existence of interpretations of religion that do not teach us to be satisfied with not understanding does not negate the existence of the interpretations that do

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The thing is that as far as they're concerned they're not giving up, they think they have the answer, e.g. the reason we have a sense of right and wrong is that god has given it to us. When you believe in god all of these explanations make perfect sense and are very satisfying and even comforting but when you don't, all you're seeing is someone shoving a god into every gap in their knowledge in lieu of an explanation.

..and once again can you clarify who it is that 'they' are?

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

So he had a choice and what might have been is a tragedy for you. I wonder if you asked the scientist himself if he felt he made the right decision or not what he would say? Do you think it's a tragedy simply because he didn't fulfill his potential as a scientist?

I think it's a tragedy for the same reason that I would think it a tragedy if someone found happiness in psychotropic drugs. Yes they're happy but their happiness is based on an illusion and easy answers to difficult questions

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

..and once again can you clarify who it is that 'they' are?

The first example that pops into my head is Francis Collins who thinks that morality could not have evolved and that only humans display moral behaviour.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you think that his statement does not apply to your particular brand of religion then that's absolutely fantastic and feel free to ignore everything he says. If you pointed it out to him I'm sure he would be the first to agree with you. But the existence of interpretations of religion that do not teach us to be satisfied with not understanding does not negate the existence of the interpretations that do

Then he should be more careful about making blanket catch-all statements shouldn't he? I mean if he said 'some people have interpretations of religions that teach them to be satisfied with not understanding the world' I'd say, hey that guy is right.

D'oh wait, he can't do that because if he did everyone would agree with him, and he wouldn't be getting his spot on The Late Late Show. I guess he'll just have to continue peddling his own particular brand "controversial" statements at the expense of actually engaging in realities.

I guess I'll just go and write "The Atheist Delusion, How Atheism Teaches Us To Murder" - I mean just because 99.99999999% of atheists don't murder anyone doesn't negate the fact that there were some militant atheists who murdered clerics etc in the name of promoting atheism.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you think that his statement does not apply to your particular brand of religion then that's absolutely fantastic and feel free to ignore everything he says. If you pointed it out to him I'm sure he would be the first to agree with you. But the existence of interpretations of religion that do not teach us to be satisfied with not understanding does not negate the existence of the interpretations that do

You don't get it do you? Nobody is saying that no religious group has ever done what Dawkins said, but that does not justify him making a blanket statement which imputes a falsehood to religion in general.

But then why would we expect anything different? After all atheism teaches people to tell lies. *

(* Please note that I am not using the English language in the normal way that we were all taught at school - but rather English 'from the atheist position'. If you think that my statement does not apply to your particular brand of atheism then that's absolutely fantastic and feel free to ignore everything I say. If you pointed it out to me I'm sure I would be the first to agree with you. But the existence of interpretations of atheism that do not teach us to tell lies does not negate the existence of the interpretations that do.)

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Then he should be more careful about making blanket catch-all statements shouldn't he? I mean if he said 'some people have interpretations of religions that teach them to be satisfied with not understanding the world' I'd say, hey that guy is right.

D'oh wait, he can't do that because if he did everyone would agree with him, and he wouldn't be getting his spot on The Late Late Show. I guess he'll just have to continue peddling his own particular brand "controversial" statements at the expense of actually engaging in realities.

I guess I'll just go and write "The Atheist Delusion, How Atheism Teaches Us To Murder" - I mean just because 99.99999999% of atheists don't murder anyone doesn't negate the fact that there were some militant atheists who murdered clerics etc in the name of promoting atheism.

Maybe he should be more careful just as I became more careful in the Lisbon debates and added a disclaimer to all of my posts. But when I became "more careful" it wasn't because I felt I was being unclear, every one of the yes voters always knew exactly what was meant, it was only ever the no voters who were reading my posts with a view to picking fault in them that decided that I must be referring to every single one of them and was therefore wrong and I got sick of having arguments about the exceptions I already knew existed instead of the point I was trying to make, just as we have been doing for the past 20 pages

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You don't get it do you? Nobody is saying that no religious group has ever done what Dawkins said, but that does not justify him making a blanket statement which imputes a falsehood to religion in general.

But we have already established that all, or at least the vast majority of religions, teach faith in revelation, and to be satisfied with that as a way of understanding the world around us.

So Dawkins point stands, since Dawkins believes that faith in revelation is not understanding

so what is your point?

It is like someone saying I don't like Democrates because they believe that government is the solution to the problems of America

Only a moron would take that statement to believe that every single Democrat believes this, or that they believe it for every single problem.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

You don't get it do you? Nobody is saying that no religious group has ever done what Dawkins said, but that does not justify him making a blanket statement which imputes a falsehood to religion in general.

But then why would we expect anything different? After all atheism teaches people to tell lies. *

(* Please note that I am not using the English language in the normal way that we were all taught at school - but rather English 'from the atheist position'. If you think that my statement does not apply to your particular brand of atheism then that's absolutely fantastic and feel free to ignore everything I say. If you pointed it out to me I'm sure I would be the first to agree with you. But the existence of interpretations of atheism that do not teach us to tell lies does not negate the existence of the interpretations that do.)

LOL. I will definitely remember this the next time you call me a buffoon for interpreting the bible as it's written instead of the way that some religious people have arbitrarily decided it should be interpreted

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The first example that pops into my head is Francis Collins who thinks that morality could not have evolved and that only humans display moral behaviour.

This Francis Collins? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)?

Strikes me as a man who completely contradicts the picture you paint of "they" in his own field of science.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

This Francis Collins? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)?

Strikes me as a man who completely contradicts the picture you paint of "they" in his own field of science.

You need to read up on him more then. ...

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

This Francis Collins? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)?

Strikes me as a man who completely contradicts the picture you paint of "they" in his own field of science.

He's a man who believes that morality could not have evolved and that animals do not exhibit moral behaviour. Two things that he expects to be true because of his religious beliefs which are not supported by evidence. He fits my picture of "they" quite well. As I keep saying, it doesn't apply to every single religious person who has ever existed at all times in their lives in all areas of their lives.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

But we have already established that all, or at least the vast majority of religions, teach faith in revelation, and to be satisfied with that as a way of understanding the world around us.

I think you've established that to yourself.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He's a man who believes that morality could not have evolved and that animals do not exhibit moral behaviour. Two things that he expects to be true because of his religious beliefs which are not supported by evidence. He fits my picture of "they" quite well. As I keep saying, it doesn't apply to every single religious person who has ever existed at all times in their lives in all areas of their lives.

Ah ok, so now, not only does it not apply to a small minority of relgious people, it may only apply in a small minority of their knowledge and outlook on the world. You may as well say that because of their "religious beliefs" some people saw the face of Jesus on a frying pan, therefore religion teaches us that Jesus appears on frying pans.

PDN

prinz wrote: »

This Francis Collins? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)?

Strikes me as a man who completely contradicts the picture you paint of "they" in his own field of science.

No, no, he doesn't agree with Sam's opinion of evolutionary psychology, therefore he is definitely not interested in understanding the world. All that stuff he does with the Human Genome Project is just a cunning smokescreen to mask his uninquisitive attitude to the world.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Ah ok, so now, not only does it not apply to a small minority of relgious people, it may only apply in a small minority of their knowledge and outlook on the world.

Yes, that is the point that I have been trying to get across. Since religion is so diverse it's all but impossible to make any statement that covers anything but a small minority of it. This man's religion has caused this man to accept an answer that is in all likelihood wrong and which conflicts with scientific evidence. His religion has done this, therefore religion does this. Therefore Dawkins comment that religion does this is accurate. Whether or not you view this as a problem is a matter of opinion. It only becomes "wrong" if you interpret it to mean all religion at all times in every single way but that wasn't the way in which it was meant.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

No, no, he doesn't agree with Sam's opinion of evolutionary psychology, therefore he is definitely not interested in understanding the world. All that stuff he does with the Human Genome Project is just a cunning smokescreen to mask his uninquisitive attitude to the world.

Yup, that's right. You've got me pegged for sure

philologos

Sam, I didn't think Richard Dawkins arguments were very strong. Especially not in his "Authority from Scripture" section which unless he has corrected in a more recent edition are incorrect concerning extra-canonical Gospels, and the accounts of the Gospels of John, Matthew and Luke.