Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 226 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#12154 - 11/03/06 12:30 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Quote:
Originally posted by Rusty Rockets:
I don't think you've really captured the essence of Dawkins' main argument here, anyman. If you're going to criticize a body of work, surely you'd agree that it's better that you attempt to chip away at an opponent's strongest points.
I agree. Despite what I said above, Dawkins does have some solid criticisms of religion that are difficult to defend.

Blacknad.

Top
.
#12155 - 11/03/06 01:53 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
The Fallible Fiend. I've taken the liberty of copying over what you said on your link:

"A more reasonable approach, reasonable, because I think it could actually work, would be to find areas of commonality, state these as common values and indoctrinate kids thoroughly throughout the education process into those values."

I would have a hard time finding an argument against that.

Re. Dawkins. I think I said something on DA's original posting similar to anyman's comment:

"he whines about intolerance and yet is among the most intolerant of all humans"

We do have to become more tolerant of other's wierd beliefs. On the other hand we owe it to them to tell them why those beliefs might not be correct. I don't think Dawkin's book will help in any way. He simply preaches to the converted.

Top
#12156 - 11/03/06 02:18 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Rusty wrote:
"surely you'd agree that it's better that you attempt to chip away at an opponent's strongest points."

And he would have ... if he could have ... but he can't.

Partially because he doesn't understand them.

Partially because in those areas Dawkins' arguments are solid as a rock.

Thus he put up a straw-man to knock down.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12157 - 11/03/06 02:19 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Blacknad wrote:
"IMO no one was throwing rocks at Dawkins until he set upon the theists."

Not the case in this country. The religious "right" has been after him before he even knew they existed.

BTW: Arriving LHR on 12 November. Heading for the Cotswolds and a decent pub.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12158 - 11/03/06 03:12 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
anyman Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/04
Posts: 134
rusty,

it wasn't my concern to deal with his strongest point

i simply wanted to deal with the point i made above

his philosophy: *intolerance is wrong*

is a joke

intolerance is wrong from religious people but it is perfectly alright for atheists to be intolerant of religionists :-)

the statement itself is an absolute statement: intolerance is wrong

it is also an intolerant statement...to be intolerant of intolerance is no less intolerant :-)

it's self-refuting...and immediately so at that

the same is true of the *all truth is relative*/*there are no absolutes* philosophy

they are both absolute truth statements

again, immediately self-refuting

whence came dawkins (or anyone else's) authority to make absolute statements about what is true and what is false or what is right and what is wrong...or even about things relative or absolute

his statements in and of themselves are intolerant, absolute, and posed as absolute truths that we should all accept (or suffer his not so stinging wrath :-)

that said, i will try to step back into this at some later point with a rebuttal to his *strongest* point

my original post that you quoted above was supposed to be a quick response to show how illogical his *logic* is from a foundational perspective

my q for anyone is: are these philosophies (that sound so good and are so ubiquitously prevalent) sound or reasonable or logical

is the argument against intolerance tolerable

is the argument for all truth being relative true...or not

is the argument against absolutes or absolute truth true...or false

dawkins own intolerance and absolute truth statements are diametrically opposed to his own claims

Top
#12159 - 11/03/06 04:37 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
anyman, I think you may have very strightforwardly stated the point that I've been working up to for several weeks now. I'd like to hear some answers to these questions you pose about absolutes. Are these questions from Dawdins book? They should be, I think.
One thing you wrote: "intolerance is wrong from religious people but it is perfectly alright for atheists to be intolerant of religionists :-)" -anyman,
simplifies the point.

your "self-refuting" points clarify what I meant by 'tautological?"

I'll add that I think science is closer to tolerance than religion, but i wouldn't want to argue the point; it'd be pretty hard. I also think scientist are missing an opportunity to model tolerance (especially given our more recent advances hinting (prehension?) at the "true" nature of reality.

I'm writing this in advance, so it may not quite be write (heheh), but I've gotta say, I enjoyed reading this.
Can we have an absolute view (in one area of our lives or worldview) and still hold an opposing absolutist view when practicality looms. I think yes, but only if you "realize," or prehend, that there is some greater absolute (beyond comprehension) that both opposing "absolutes" are subsumed by. Beyond comprehension as in, something we can only prehend.
In other words, nobody knows "totally absolutly right final truth," so (as someone once said) can't we all [opposing absolutes] just get along here (inside my head)?

But then I guess you get fundamentalism if you don't accept that premise re: nobody knows "totally...."

...off on a tangent??

Thanks for a thought provoking couple of questions; I'm still thinking, so I reserve the right to better state my views (revise) if i'm quoted.
smile
~samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#12160 - 11/03/06 04:50 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
samwik wrote:
""intolerance is wrong from religious people but it is perfectly alright for atheists to be intolerant of religionists :-)" -anyman,
simplifies the point."

It may simplify it but it is wrong.

Intolerance is equally offensive no matter who is intolerant. But the difference here is not one of being intolerant of religion ... rather of being intollerant of what is done IN THE NAME OF religion: Genocide, torture, rape, theft.

The one and only distinction I would make is that religious people have a higher burden when it comes to hypocrisy as they claim to KNOW what is right. The rest of us admit we are still searching for the best answers to life's questions.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12161 - 11/03/06 08:28 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
Rusty Rockets Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/04/05
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand:

We do have to become more tolerant of other's wierd beliefs. On the other hand we owe it to them to tell them why those beliefs might not be correct. [/QB]
Isn't that what Dawkins is doing?

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 (which may prove to be a bit of a hurdle for FF?s school program). It would be interesting to know how many people of faith understand evolution, compared with how many atheists are familiar with the Bible.

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

Top
#12162 - 11/03/06 10:38 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Quote:
Originally posted by Rusty Rockets:
Quote:
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand:

We do have to become more tolerant of other's wierd beliefs. On the other hand we owe it to them to tell them why those beliefs might not be correct.
1. Isn't that what Dawkins is doing?

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 (which may prove to be a bit of a hurdle for FF?s school program).

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

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


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

Blacknad.

Top
#12163 - 11/03/06 11:02 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Samwik,

For all intents and purposes, there are no absolutes.

I personally believe that there are absolute truths, but I have no ability to prove any of them beyond doubt.

That is why philosophical analysis has 'weak proofs' and 'strong proofs'.

A weak proof is something I believe based upon, for instance, anecdotal evidence. A strong proof is something that is logically coherent or has good scientific evidence. And that's as far as you can go.

Prove to me that Hitler existed:

There are photos -

"yes and it's wonderful what you can do with Photoshop".

There is film footage -

"special effects - giant conspiracy by Jews to get sympathy".

People have seen him -

"only got their word for that."

etc.

You cannot truly know anything for sure.

I believe that it is 'absolutely' true that America put a man on the moon.

But the reason the conspiracy theorists thrive is because it is not provable. It could have been a deception - how can you know otherwise.


You cannot even prove that you exist, or that if you do you don't exist in a Matrix-like virtual reality.

Brains in jars.

I don't even know that you exist. You may be a very clever computer program.


Blacknad.

Top
#12164 - 11/03/06 01:51 PM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I agree with Blacknad when he write:
"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'."

This is where I part company with Dawkins too. Freedom of speech is more important than being right.

That said ... we don't allow people to get up in a crowded movie theatre and yell "FIRE!" And we don't allow people to urge others to commit murder. So freedom of speech does have some reasonably applied limits.

I don't care what anyone believes or says as long as they don't put others in harm's way and this is where the rubber meets the road.

Are children put in harm's way by being taught, from an early age, into believing things that history teaches us lead to intolerance and bloodshed. It is a reasonable question.

Are children put in harm's way by being taught that what their parent's believe is correct and everyone else on the planet is wrong? It is a reasonable question.

Are children put in harm's way by being taught to accept authoritarianism rather than democracy? It is a reasonable question.

The entire concept of a god or gods, no matter their theological source, is based upon the 10,000+ year old model of the tribal chieftan, king, monarch, dictator, strong-man. God gives orders and you must follow. Stalin gives orders and you must follow. Doing what you are told is good so go strap on a bomb and blow yourself up.

I think there is substantial evidence to the contrary. 10,000+ years of doing the same thing over-and-over again and getting the same result. It is time for root cause analysis.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12165 - 11/05/06 08:09 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
Here's a thought,

I'm not sure I follow about suicide bombers. Richard Dawkins didn't say that they were the product of regilious schools per se, only that religious schools brainwash children when they are at an age that anything taught to them is believed if taught by someone older. That actually makes sense.

My son was asking about solar research I was reviewing and I said the sun was going "beddy-byes" in October and was going to slumber away, doing not much at all for the next 50 years, according to the research I was reading. My son went to school and said that the sun was going to "shut off". The trouble is my bit of levity was interpreted by my son quite literally because he is at an age where he believes whatever I tell him.

Suicide bombers of the Islamic kind are the product of religious schools because that is where the people that do NOT commit suicide but go out and find people with some character weakness that makes them suitable for such acts and get them to do it. And the financial backing comes from those that attend the religious school. Someone has to pay for the cost of arranging a suicide bombing. It isn't cheap.

I have read the book and watched the Channel 4 two parter that Richard Dawkins narrates. I didn't think it was that delusional at all. The TV shows were called "The Root of All Evil". It is rather hard to argue that the three big religions that he attacks are the root of a great deal of evil. And Richard Dawkins actually concentrated on fundamentalist Christians in much of the TV shows.

Teaching religion mixed up in general science (and not just evolution bits but Noah in geology, bible stories within general science topics) probably can do with a little scrutiny. The statistic that around 50% of the US citizenry believe the world is only thousands of years old is a bit of a worry too.

I do agree with Dan, however. Richard Dawkins is not writing about science but about the dangers of religions. This is not at all the same as science. He may well be right but the topic isn't a science one except where he wishes religion to stay out of science where the two conflict (in his opinion always). I don't think the book is written in any attempt to be "scientific". It is an attempt to show established religions as a danger and one that seems to be gripping the US to a larger extent rather than slowly retreating with the advancement of science.

The person that just knew that his friend was right in killing a doctor who performed abortions and could wrap up a murder as being a good Christian duty, is a bit of a worry, as is much of US politics where the seperation of Chuch and State isn't even given lip service.

It may not be science but it is related to science in that Richard Dawkins sees this type of religion as an attack on science. Australia has agreed to stem cell research. Our Catholic Cardinal is about as conservative as they come and is attempting to have the political decision overturned because it will lead to "human cloning" the "crossing of horses and sheep" and all manner of ungodly occurrences.

Anyman, Richard Dawkins is rather passionate; he does not present his arguments as scientific proof; and he directly attacks religions without consideration for the feelings of those that practice those religions (although in his interviews in the TV programs he was quite restrained and was only inpolite on one occasion, imho). But just how does this make him as bad as those he is arguing against, a bigot or someone totally intolerant? It is that leap that I don't quite understand.

My personal view is that faith is a matter for personal beliefs and AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH OTHERS it should be no one's business. But Richard Dawkins was attacking faith where it directly interfered with others. Is such an attack on the same level as the person that believes killing abortion doctors is not a sin, or blowing up a bus of civilians gets you into paradise or is morally reasonable? I can't see the equality here.


Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#12166 - 11/05/06 10:03 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Quote:
Originally posted by RicS:
My personal view is that faith is a matter for personal beliefs and AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH OTHERS it should be no one's business.
Agreed.

At the centre of Christianity was Jesus, who by scriptural accounts stayed firmly away from politics and, in fact, anyone with influence. Instead he associated with the lowest in that society - the hated tax collectors, the lepers, blind, beggars and others who were shunned. He even stayed firmly away from organised religion and only interacted with them when he was calling them a nest of vipers and whitewashed tombs full of dead man's bones and rotten to the core.

This is where he saw his work, amongst the less fortunate, and told his followers that this was how you serve God. He actively resisted pressure from his disciples to take a more political and aggressive approach to bringing in 'The Kingdom', but explained that he saw it in the heart of an individual committed to serving others.

And now we have scary American Christianity that does exactly the opposite and courts the rich and powerful, and the political.

Richard, you are correct in saying that Faith is a personal belief, but I would disagree that it should not impact others. It should impact others lives by servicing those who need assistance.

If this was all the faithful did then (instead of things like pointlessly defending Creationism or attacking gays) I suspect that even Dawkins wouldn't have a problem.

But you and I probably agree that when faith becomes corporate it is a very dangerous animal.

Blacknad.

Top
#12167 - 11/05/06 08:38 PM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Blacknad wrote:
"At the centre of Christianity was Jesus, who by scriptural accounts stayed firmly away from politics and, in fact, anyone with influence."

You mean other than that ugly little scene he made in the temple: "Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those engaged in selling and buying there"?

Strikes me those who were running the government, and the temple, might have reasonably disagreed with you on this point.

And not to create a distraction here but also, in Matthew 21, I found this lovely passage: "Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them here to me."

Try that tomorrow and the constabulary will be less than amused. They call that a violation of one of the Ten Commandements." ;-)

Please don't argue with the above. My point is merely that what is written can be interpreted (spun) anyway one wishes.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12168 - 11/05/06 11:26 PM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
alsy Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 11/05/06
Posts: 10
Yes, very delusional but don`t blame him-blame god!

Top
#12169 - 11/06/06 12:36 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I don't blame anyone.

But on the subject of Dawkins this may spark some lively discussion:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/05/cover.story/index.html
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12170 - 11/06/06 12:57 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
I liked your link DA, sounds as if 'great minds think alike.'
Re: the comments over on Origins 'Dawkins..dellusional.'
-whoops, thought i was on a different thread....

Religion is based on a different kind of knowlege, I think.
So that makes comparing the two very difficult -as we've seen on this forum. As DA said, -two different languages-
to say the least, if not two different realms.
Thanks,
~Samwik

P.S. I find it hard to see science attacked by religion and not feel like attacking back; but I try....
~S

Some of the comments from the article sounded familiar, such as:

**Catholicism's Christoph Cardinal Sch?nborn has dubbed the most fervent of faith-challenging scientists followers of "scientism" or "evolutionism," since they hope science, beyond being a measure, can replace religion as a worldview and a touchstone.
But a growing proportion of the profession is experiencing what one major researcher calls "unprecedented outrage" at perceived insults to research and rationality, ranging from the alleged influence of the Christian right on Bush administration science policy, to the fanatic faith of the 9/11 terrorists, to intelligent design's ongoing claims. Some are radicalized enough to publicly pick an ancient scab -- the idea that science and religion, far from being complementary responses to the unknown, are at utter odds.
Finding a spokesman for this side of the question was not hard, since Richard Dawkins, perhaps its foremost polemicist, has just come out with "The God Delusion" (Houghton Mifflin), the rare volume whose position is so clear it forgoes a subtitle.
...and an argument in which one party stands immovable on Scripture and the other immobile on the periodic table doesn't get anyone very far.
We want debates about issues like stem cells without conceding that the positions are so intrinsically inimical as to make discussion fruitless.
Francis Collins & Richard Dawkins
His summer best seller, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" (Free Press), laid out some of the arguments he brought to bear in the 90-minute debate Time arranged between Dawkins and Collins in our offices at the Time & Life Building on September 30. Some excerpts from their spirited exchange are featured in this week's Time cover story.

I just was listening to something on C-span with Francis Collins. He referred to a 19th c. playwright who said something like:

It was something like those who possess the truth are proud and vain. Those that are seeking the truth show real character.

~samwik smile
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#12171 - 11/06/06 08:21 AM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Science and religion serve two totally different purposes in society. Most religions provide a code of ethics (not necessarily followed by its believers) and comfort to the ailing. Science does neither of these things. Hence Trilobyte's expression "evolutionism" is totally irrelevant. There can be no such thing.

On the other hand science has shown many religious beliefs concerning human history and the history of our planet to be completely false.

Top
#12172 - 11/06/06 12:50 PM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
alsy Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 11/05/06
Posts: 10
On the question of God v Dawkins in a court of law would not prof Dawkins be denying the very existence of himself by denying a power greater than himself?Even if everything started from nothing, happening at random etc.Is that not `god`?What i am saying is even if everything was started by `nothing`it does not mean to say nothing is not intelligent if you see what i mean....I think prof Dawkins sees `god` as a `being`.

Top
#12173 - 11/06/06 07:08 PM Re: is dawkins delusional? ...from the frontpage
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Alsy asks:
"On the question of God v Dawkins in a court of law would not prof Dawkins be denying the very existence of himself by denying a power greater than himself?"

Not at all. There is no relationship between the existence of an apple and the existence of a deck chair on the Titanic.

"What i am saying is even if everything was started by `nothing`it does not mean to say nothing is not intelligent if you see what i mean."

I see what you mean. But intelligence is incapable of building most ordered systems.

If there is a god ... the one thing that can be said for certain ... is that it is logically impossible for it to be intelligent in the sense in which we use that word.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.