Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage

Hiya Rusty,

1. Isn't that what Dawkins is doing?

I listened to a BBC Radio programme with Richard Dawkins a few months ago. (I mean I listened to a programme with him in it - not that I sat with him and listened to it together).

He was debating with a couple of others (a Bishop and so on..) and to be fair, he was not so adversarial and I was quite impressed with what he had to say.

It cannot be denied that religion is extremely problematic for humanity. It is at the root of much suffering, intolerance, ignorance and bloodshed. So he is spot on there. It is however, at the root of much good also, as I have tried to demonstrate in the past here on SAGG.

Regarding your point though:

"Isn't that what Dawkins is doing?"

I don't think so, and this is where he and others, like Sam Harris - the Atheists Bulldog, run into problems.

They cannot have their cake and eat it. They want a society of enlightened and tolerant individuals, not beholden to backward mythologies that prevent people from embracing the benefits of reason. One of the things at the core of this is freedom, and one of the mechanisms whereby we protect freedom is 'The Right to Free Speech'.

But as Dawkins so pointedly reveals, he would happily sacrifice people's right to free speech to get the greater benefit of 'doing away with the mythologies'.

He says:

"The majority of us don't cause needless suffering; we believe in free speech and protect it even if we disagree with what is being said."

But then...

He quotes later in the book approvingly and at length a speech by his friend Nicholas Humphrey which argued that, "We should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out."

But of course, it's not interfering with free speech when atheists do it.

Now as a Christian parent, I agree in part. I will not indoctrinate my daughter by teaching her that my understanding of the universe is the right one. She is three years old now and I am careful not to give her only one point of view.

Hence - "Daddy believes this, but many other people believe this". It is a difficult balance to maintain, but I wish her to choose her beliefs as freely as possible, and if she chooses to disregard God and embrace an entirely materialistic approach to life - then I will respect her free-will to choose, that I believe God gave her.

But this is a world apart from Dawkins or anyone else wanting to prevent me from acting by my conscience. I would not want to prevent a parent from teaching their child that there is no God, even though I only teach my child that 'I' believe there is, not that it is beyond doubt.

So to a degree, people like Sam Harris and Dawkins scare me a little. They are intellectually incoherent on this point.

2. And if Dawkins "preaching" is only read by the converted, it may be because true believers don't want to be exposed to alternative viewpoints.

Most of the 'thinking' Christian friends I know have already read this book. I am not buying it but waiting for a mate to finish with his copy. But I have read other stuff by Dawkins and have just started the Extended Phenotype. I also never miss him if he makes a media appearance. Your generalization does people like me no credit.

I think that the vocal, ignorant, conservative Christians do all the shouting and the more reasonable Christians are left to pick up the tab.

3. It would be interesting to know how many people of faith understand evolution, compared with how many atheists are familiar with the Bible.

Again, I know a good few Christians that understand evolution (I am not amongst them, but am learning - but I have never denied evolution, on the basis that you cannot disagree with something you don't understand).

I would expect and encourage Christians to spend some time understanding evolution in a non critical manner.

I would not, however, expect Atheists to have a more than passing understanding of the Bible. Why should they? It is up to them how they spend their time. And besides, if anyone comes to the Bible from a critical start point, then their reading will only serve to confirm their thoughts.

I have a problem with Christians who proclaim to be experts in Evolution, unless they are academics who really have devoted much study to the subject. It seems to me to be something that takes a life-time to fully understand and my mate Matthew Luke Jesus-son who has read a couple of websites and a book or two entitled 'The Many Problems with Evilooshun', cannot in any way be relied upon to have a clue.

And the same goes for Atheists who have 'read' the Bible, whether they have read it once or more 'all the way through (which I always question 'cos it ain't no Dan Brown novel'). These people then think they can comment with authority despite having no knowledge of its historicity, ancient writing conventions and most importantly its purpose. Even Theologians who devote a lifetimes study, still struggle to comprehend it.

4. There seems to be a lot of complaints about how rude Dawkins is, and very little focus on what his actual arguments are.

Agreed, but he needs to understand that if he wants to do away with religion, then he will never be able to enforce it. He will only be able to challenge and educate and ask the searching questions.

If he then alienates the people he wants to impact by being rude and scary then he's on a hiding to nothing.

This book, by some accounts, seems to have driven a wedge deeper between him and the faithful, and also lost him some respect amongst atheists and agnostics alike.

I do look forward to reading it in full though


Sorry for the length of the post. Feel free to ignore it. (Notice I put that at the end and not the start).

Blacknad.