Richard Dawkins

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

The Bible does not say you must see and understand to be satisfied to believe.

Yes it does:

"This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: " 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving....Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them." Matthew 13:13-15

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

We all believe in things that we don't fully understand. That does not equate to being satisfied with not understanding things.

Groan

Yes it does. If we weren't satisfied to believe we wouldn't believe.

The fact that "we all" do it is irrelevant to Dawkins comment. I swear this is like in school when the teacher gives out to you for doing something and the response is "I didn't do it! Billy did it too!"

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes it does:

"This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: " 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving....Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them." Matthew 13:13-15

Er, that passage actually says the exact opposite.

You must trust Jesus explanation through parable because we are incapable of understanding ourselves.

The important bit you left out (I'm going to assume not on purpose) - "FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,"

Not only is this passage saying be satisfied by faith, but you must be satisfied by faith because we can't, without Jesus, figure these things out ourselves. We can't understand.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan

Yes it does. If we weren't satisfied to believe we wouldn't believe.

The fact that "we all" do it is irrelevant to Dawkins comment. I swear this is like in school when the teacher gives out to you for doing something and the response is "I didn't do it! Billy did it too!"

I believe in God and admit that I do not understand everything, but my belief in God is not hindering my attempts of trying understanding things, this is true for most Christians I know and I'm sure it is true of other faiths too which means Dawkins is wrong on this point.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I believe in God and admit that I do not understand everything, but my belief in God is not hindering my attempts of trying understanding things

As I already said to prinz that is irrelevant. Dawkins did not say that religion teaches us to be hindered understanding, he said it teaches us to be satisfied not understanding.

Which you just admitted you are because you believe things based on trust rather than understanding (the bit in bold)

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, that passage actually says the exact opposite.

You must trust Jesus explanation through parable because we are incapable of understanding ourselves.

You are leap frogging again to irrelevant points. You stated that we don't need to understand to be satisfied to believe and I showed you chapter and verse that shows that to be false. Whether Jesus' explanation is the best or not is irrelevant here.

But to answer you point, pray tell me who's explanation do you think we should believe if not Jesus' explanation?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan

Yes it does. If we weren't satisfied to believe we wouldn't believe.

The fact that "we all" do it is irrelevant to Dawkins comment. I swear this is like in school when the teacher gives out to you for doing something and the response is "I didn't do it! Billy did it too!"

So, you are interpreting Dawkin' words as saying that religion does something that everyone does anyway - something that education does as well?

But Dawkins was using this as a reason why he is against religion. So, by your interpretation of his words, Dawkins must also be against education.

Congratulations. Your determination to argue just for the sake of it has painted yourself into a corner.

Schools and Universities teach us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. And, sadly, the clear use of language as an effective means of communication has taken another Wicknightian hit.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

As I already said to prinz that is irrelevant. Dawkins did not say that religion teaches us to be hindered understanding, he said it teaches us to be satisfied not understanding.

Which you just admitted you are because you believe things based on trust rather than understanding (the bit in bold)

But that has absolutely nothing to do with my religion teaching me to be happy in not understanding though does it? Granted the Bible tells us to seek first the kingdom of God but how can you make the jump from that to oh and also be happy in not understanding anything else while your at it.

EDIT: Must dash out the door now. Will log back on later and continue this riveting discussion

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But that has absolutely nothing to do with my religion teaching me to be happy in not understanding though does it?

Of course it does. Your religion teaches you that faith is enough to believe. You don't understand, but you have faith so you are happy to believe. The curiosity afterwards to explore more is irrelevant to the initial point

Soul Winner wrote: »

Granted the Bible tells us to seek first the kingdom of God but how can you make the jump from that to oh and also be happy in not understanding anything else while your at it.

Er probably because I'm not. That is prinz and PDN's little straw man.

It is more like You have faith in what God told you? Ok that is enough to be satisfied to believe

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So, you are interpreting Dawkin' words as saying that religion does something that everyone does anyway - something that education does as well?

I would imagine Dawkins would have as much issue with an education system that told children that to believe then it is enough to simply trust the teacher, you don't have to understand why the teacher is saying it, as he would with religion.

PDN wrote: »

But Dawkins was using this as a reason why he is against religion. So, by your interpretation of his words, Dawkins must also be against education.

If that is what you think education is (and given your views on religion I wouldn't be surprised), then yes I imagine Dawkins would be against that as well.

In fact I know he would since he has written many times against the "schools" in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia that do basically that, teach things that the students are supposed to simply accept because of the authority of the teacher.

PDN wrote: »

Schools and Universities teach us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

Some do (the fundamentalist religious ones mostly) but then Dawkins complains about them too.

So I'm not following your point. Are we back to Dawkins is correct but sure everyone does it too?

PDN

Richard Dawkins says: "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

According to Wicknight and Sam Vimes this actually means:"I am against religion because some (but not all) kinds of religion, in certain specific areas of life (but not all areas), teach us to be satisfied with not understanding the world, something in fact that is not confined to religion but rather something that we all do anyway."?

If that is indeed what Dawkins meant to say, then I entirely withdraw my previous statement that his literary style is OK. If Dawkins actually intended to say what Sam ans Wicknight are ascribing to him, then that makes him one of the worst writers ever, and no statement that he makes can be taken at face value.

prinz

PDN wrote: »

If that is indeed what Dawkins meant to say, then I entirely withdraw my previous statement that his literary style is OK. If Dawkins actually intended to say what Sam ans Wicknight are ascribing to him, then that makes him one of the worst writers ever, and no statement that he makes can be taken at face value.

Ah now, at least Sam had the wherewithall to acknowledge that Dawkins' statement as it stands is flawed.

Where as others will just keep reinterpreting and moving the goalposts, no wait he didn't mean the world, he meant the world as viewed with a faith in the existence of God, no wait, he didn't mean that either he actually just meant the existence of God at all.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Richard Dawkins says: "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

According to Wicknight and Sam Vimes this actually means:"I am against religion because some (but not all) kinds of religion, in certain specific areas of life (but not all areas), teach us to be satisfied with not understanding the world, something in fact that is not confined to religion but rather something that we all do anyway."?

If that is indeed what Dawkins meant to say, then I entirely withdraw my previous statement that his literary style is OK. If Dawkins actually intended to say what Sam ans Wicknight are ascribing to him, then that makes him one of the worst writers ever, and no statement that he makes can be taken at face value.

You apparently don't need us for this little rant of yours as you are perfectly happy to make up what we are saying, so I'm wondering if there is any point replying to you...

What I think Dawkins is saying is I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied enough with faith in a revelation from God to believe it, rather than understanding of the thing itself.

And given that you all admit doing that I'm failing to see how Dawkins is wrong.

I await your inevitable next straw man ...

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's your point and that's fine, our point is that the Bible doesn't start out trying to explain how the world works in the first place, it is a record of how people stay in right relationship with God not the world.

No one on this thread ever suggested it didn't. We are not arguing that the bible/religion doesn't teach you about the world. We're arguing that religion teaches you to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

The Bible does not claim to be a scientific explanation about the universe and the world, it simply gives God the glory for creating it all in the first place and it tells us how he did it, by simply speaking it into existence.

Have you read the thread ? Again, no one is suggesting otherwise.

Can something on this magnitude be understood scientifically by our limited brain capacity if it's true? No.

Which is what we are arguing. Religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

You realise you are supporting our argument here ?

So the Bible describes things in terms that we can understand. What is the big deal about understanding the world or the universe anyway when it is where our eternal soul ends up which is most important to the God that is revealed in the Bible?

And ..... jackpot.

This is exactly what we have been arguing. That religion teaches you to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

You have just stated understanding the universe is not important because your religion is whats really important.

Thank you.

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

Thank you.

It seems every thread like this it takes 20 pages to argue the theists to the point where they admit they actually agree with the correctness of the statement but disagree with the qualifier (ie its good or bad). Then we can actually get down to a proper discussion

Talk about knee-jerk. Dawkins said it, IT MUST BE WRONG!!! Lets argue that it is for 20 pages (strawmen help). Oh look, its actually correct. :pac:

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

And given that you all admit doing that I'm failing to see how Dawkins is wrong. ...

You are failing because you are reading your own interpretation into what Dawkins actually said as follows...

Wicknight wrote: »

What I think Dawkins is saying is.......

Now what I think Dawkins is saying, (with the actual words he used) is wrong. So I'm failing to see how Dawkins is right.

Zulu

Comrade C wrote: »

Yep, but jst saying that his points arnt incorrect

Sound, I appricate the honesty. Some people are blind to his obvious arrogance, which is a little astounding tbh.

His points are fine to me, it's the way he presents them that sticks in my craw.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

You are failing because you are reading your own interpretation into what Dawkins actually said as follows...

And your doing what exactly, mind reading Dawkins?

Consistently through this thread you invented the straw man that Dawkins point was that religion tells you not to continue to try and understand things, that you should stop at faith.

Except Dawkins didn't say that.

Satisfied with not understand does not mean you can't continue to try and understand, it means you are satisfied. You can continue or you don't have to

Given that you admit this, what is your remaining objection to what Dawkins said?

prinz wrote: »

Now what I think Dawkins is saying, (with the actual words he used) is wrong. So I'm failing to see how Dawkins is right.

Oh please, that was in response to PDN making up a nonsense position for me. :rolleyes:

I'm perfectly happy sticking to what Dawkins said, you are the ones arguing he is saying something (that religion tells you to stop at faith) that he isn't.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

And your doing what exactly, mind reading Dawkins?

No, simply taking Dawkins at his word in making a point which apparently he later rowed back on himself. Yet here you are claiming I am the one mind reading, when you are the one basing your opinion on what you think he said... the irony.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm perfectly happy sticking to what Dawkins said...

That's laughable since you seem to have repeatedly reinterpreted what you think he said.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course it does. Your religion teaches you that faith is enough to believe.

actually it doesnt. fat and REason are involved in christianity. the same reason that underpins science!

But belief is faith.

AS for not understanding most peopole believe in the brain and believe in thoughts but they might not understand the brain or thoughts. They believe that when you put petrol in a car or food in the body it is transformed into energy but they might not understand the process.

You don't understand, but you have faith so you are happy to believe.

Yes but that would not rule out having a rational investigation into what you don't understand. And even when you don't understand it you can still believe it exists.

Morbert

Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion..

His stuff about philosophical arguments for God's existence: Quite good.
His stuff about Christian beliefs and morality: Not so much.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

AS for not understanding most peopole believe in the brain and believe in thoughts but they might not understand the brain or thoughts. They believe that when you put petrol in a car or food in the body it is transformed into energy but they might not understand the process.

And?

I've already dealt with the everyone else does it argument with PDN

ISAW wrote: »

Yes but that would not rule out having a rational investigation into what you don't understand.

And?

I've already dealt with that not being what Dawkins said with prinz

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

That's laughable since you seem to have repeatedly reinterpreted what you think he said.

No, what is changing is you are slowly coming back from your kneejerk interpretation of what Dawkins was saying (that he was saying that religion says you must not investigate further than faith)

If you look at my first post on this matter it is consistent with my last post.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

No, what is changing is you are slowly coming back from your kneejerk interpretation of what Dawkins was saying (that he was saying that religion says you must not investigate further than faith).If you look at my first post on this matter it is consistent with my last post.

It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction. It was what the man actually said. He then went on to try to clarify what he said later on. Why you feel the need to reinterpret it in an effort to make it true is beyond me.

The man made an erroneous statement (there is no need for interpretation, or what we think he said), he meant it exactly as he worded it, he realised his mistake later and changed it. Why is it so difficult for you to accept?

Zulu

Because Dawkins is infallible?

prinz

Zulu wrote: »

Because Dawkins is infallible?

That's the only explanation I can think of :pac:

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction. It was what the man actually said.

No it wasn't. No where in what Dawkins said was the statement that religion teaches people not to be interested in understanding things, which is how you took it.

Teaching you to be satisfied not understanding is not the same thing as teaching you to not to try and understand. It is teaching you to be satisfied even if you don't try and understand.

You invented Dawkins position based on something that wasn't in what he said because it is easier to rail in annoyance at that straw man that at what Dawkins actually said

If a football coach says "I think we will be satisfied with a draw tonight" that is not the same as him saying "My team better not try and win tonight"

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Would you consider say Mother Theresa to have wasted her life? Or Ghandi? Or Martin Luther King? Or Nelson Mandela?

I didn't say that every person who is religious has wasted their life, what I said was that someone giving up on their chosen career because of the particular interpretation of the particular holy book that happens to be the most popular in the place where they were raised is a shameful waste

prinz wrote: »

Good, just so as long as we're clear that atheism teaches people to be satisfied with murdering and persecuting.

But it doesn't do that. Some atheists have taught that, yes, but there is no logical connection between atheism and murdering and persecuting. There is however a logical connection between some religion and being satisfied with not understanding the world, just as there is a connection between some religion and murdering and persecuting, e.g the Jews murdering sorry killing* (apparently there's a difference) their neighbours all through the old testament or that whole 9/11 thing

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I didn't say that every person who is religious has wasted their life, what I said was that someone giving up on their chosen career because of the particular interpretation of the particular holy book that happens to be the most popular in the place where they were raised.

Yeah but it is much easier for them to be indignant if you said the other thing, so can't we just pretend ... :pac: