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 Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
In The God Delusion, the scientist Richard Dawkins sets out to attack God "in all his forms".

He argues that the rise of religious fundamentalism is dividing people around the world, while the dispute between "intelligent design" and Darwinism "is seriously undermining and restricting the teaching of science".

Here is an excerpt from Chapter 7:

Begin in Genesis with the well-loved story of Noah, derived from the Babylonian myth of Uta-Napisthim and known from the older mythologies of several cultures. The legend of the animals going into the ark two by two is charming, but the moral of the story of Noah is appalling. God took a dim view of humans, so he (with the exception of one family) drowned the lot of them including children and also, for good measure, the rest of the (presumably blameless) animals as well.

Of course, irritated theologians will protest that we don't take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is my whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the atheist's decision to follow this moral precept or that was a personal decision, without an absolute foundation. If one of these is 'morality flying by the seat of its pants', so is the other. In any case, despite the good intentions of the sophisticated theologian, a frighteningly large number of people still do take their scriptures, including the story of Noah, literally. According to Gallup, they include approximately 50 per cent of the US electorate. Also, no doubt, many of those Asian holy men who blamed the 2004 tsunami not on a plate tectonic shift but on human sins, ranging from drinking and dancing in bars to breaking some footling sabbath rule. Steeped in the story of Noah, and ignorant of all except biblical learning, who can blame them? Their whole education has led them to view natural disasters as bound up with human affairs, paybacks for human misdemeanours rather than anything so impersonal as plate tectonics. By the way, what presumptuous egocentricity to believe that earth-shaking events, on the scale at which a god (or a tectonic plate) might operate, must always have a human connection. Why should a divine being, with creation and eternity on his mind, care a fig for petty human malefactions? We humans give ourselves such airs, even aggrandizing our poky little 'sins' to the level of cosmic significance!


DA Morgan
.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
From Prospect Magazine:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803

It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works.

In his broad thesis, Dawkins is right. Religions are potentially dangerous, and in their popular forms profoundly irrational. The agnostics must be right and the atheists very well may be. There is no purpose to the universe. Nothing inconsistent with the laws of physics has been reliably reported. To demand a designer to explain the complexity of the world begs the question, "Who designed the designer?" It has been clear since Darwin that we have no need to hypothesise a designer to explain the complexity of living things. The results of intercessory prayer are indistinguishable from those of chance.

Dawkins gets miffed when this is called "19th-century" atheism, since, as he says, the period of their first discovery does not affect the truth of these propositions. But to call it "19th-century" is to draw attention to the important truth added in the 20th century: that religious belief persists in the face of these facts and arguments.

This persistence is what any scientific attack on religion must explain ? and this one doesn't. Dawkins mentions lots of modern atheist scientists who have tried to explain the puzzle: Robert Hinde, Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, DS Wilson, Daniel Dennett, all of them worth reading. But he cannot accept the obvious conclusion to draw from their works, which is that thoroughgoing atheism is unnatural and will never be popular.

Dawkins is inexhaustibly outraged by the fact that religious opinions lead people to terrible crimes. But what, if there is no God, is so peculiarly shocking about these opinions being specifically religious? The answer he supplies is simple: that when religious people do evil things, they are acting on the promptings of their faith but when atheists do so, it's nothing to do with their atheism. He devotes pages to a discussion of whether Hitler was a Catholic, concluding that "Stalin was an atheist and Hitler probably wasn't, but even if he was? the bottom line is very simple. Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism."

Yet under Stalin almost the entire Orthodox priesthood was exterminated simply for being priests, as were the clergy of other religions and hundreds of thousands of Baptists. The claim that Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his actions may be the most disingenuous in the book, but it has competition from a later question, "Why would anyone go to war for the sake of an absence of belief [atheism]?"?as if the armies of the French revolution had marched under icons of the Virgin, or as if a common justification offered for China's invasion of Tibet had not been the awful priest-ridden backwardness of the Dalai Lama's regime.

One might argue that a professor of the public understanding of science has no need to concern himself with trivialities outside his field like the French revolution, the Spanish civil war or Stalin's purges when he knows that history is on his side. "With notable exceptions, such as the Afghan Taliban and the American Christian equivalent, most people play lip service to the same broad liberal consensus of ethical principles." Really? "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." Do the Chinese believe in free speech? Does Dawkins think that pious Catholics or Muslims are allowed to? Does he believe in it himself? 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.

He repeats the theory that suicide bombs are caused by religious schools: "If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior value of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers. Suicide bombers do what they do because they really believe what they were taught in their religious schools." Evidence? As it happens, the definitive scientific study of suicide bombers, Dying to Win, has just been published by Robert Pape, a Chicago professor who has a database containing every known suicide attack since 1980. This shows, as clearly as evidence can, that religious zealotry is not on its own sufficient to produce suicide bombers; in fact, it's not even necessary: the practice was widely used by Marxist guerrillas in Sri Lanka.


Blacknad adds...Robert Pape found that under half of the total suicide attacks recorded were carried out by religious types.


Dawkins, as a young man, invented and deployed to great effect a logical fallacy he called "the argument from Episcopal incredulity," skewering a hapless clergyman who had argued that since nothing hunted polar bears, they had no need to camouflage themselves in white. It had not occurred to the bishop that polar bears must eat, and that the seals they prey on find it harder to spot a white bear stalking across the ice cap. Of course, you had to think a bit about life on the ice cap to spot this argument. But thinking a bit was once what Dawkins was famous for. It's a shame to see him reduced to one long argument from professorial incredulity.

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I'm not defending his book as I've not read it.

But that sort of leads me to ask, after what you wrote, whether you have either.


DA Morgan
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Blacknad, I thought you had composed a very interesting and thought provoking post till I went to your link.

I haven't read the book either but I have actually found Richard Dawkins comments in the past to be a bit pushy and arrogant. As a Jehovah's Witness friend of mine said once in criticism to something I'd written to the local newspaper, "Slowly, slowly, catchee monkey". He was pointing out there's no purpose served by alienating the people whose beliefs you are questioning.

Although I would describe myself as an atheist I often suggest that each religion has managed to grasp a little bit of the pie. The problem is that they all think they have the whole pie. There is the argument that humans evolved a desire to have a religion because groups with more complex cultures were better able to survive difficult times.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand:
The problem is that they all think they have the whole pie. There is the argument that humans evolved a desire to have a religion because groups with more complex cultures were better able to survive difficult times.
Terry,

I consider myself religious, although my faith has undergone considerable revision since I started reading and debating on this site. I owe much to Dan who has been the most challenging and coherent atheist I have known. I came here with an unswerving conviction and have moved to a position I can only describe as Christian Agnosticism.

I am in complete agreement with your statement, 'the problem is they think they have the whole of the pie'.

You are spot on - religion that contains no doubt' and assumes it has a panoramic view of 'life, the universe and everything', is something to be feared. Organised religion is a disgrace. The Vatican City is a blight upon the face of the earth (and I really do feel that strongly about it - by their own definition they commit evil).

Despite all of this, I cannot subscribe to Materialism and still find Christ and the evidence surrounging the claims about him compelling, (probably much to Dan's chagrin).

The second part of your statement could do with some analysis. But it will suffice to say that it may very well explain what is going on, but you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that because it is possible to conceice of an explanation then that explanation is the correct one or indeed the only factor.

Blacknad.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Dawkins' words in DA's post bring this question to my mind, which only has a little to do with the topic. I am NO RELIGIOUS SCHOLAR by any stretch of the imagination, so if anyone is of a mind to correct me, I'll take their comments to heart. All this is from personal observation, but not real study.

It seems to me that the fundamentalist Christian churches failed to move from Old Testament mentality to that of the New Testament. From what I gather, "salvation" is a personal thing. Nations, populations, groups or congregations are NOT granted or denied salvation, based on the mores or actions of the group. "Salvation" is granted to individuals only. The idea that an entire population is punished or elevated by God should be dead, shouldn't it? If so, why do America's fundies continue to attribute disasters, 9/11, etc. on the moral failings of the country as a whole?

My guess is that people like Blacknad would generally agree with me, and people like Anyman would not. I wouldn't mind hearing their thoughts, though.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Blacknad wrote:
"I owe much to Dan who has been the most challenging and coherent atheist I have known."

First pint is on me. November 12th.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally posted by soilguy:
Dawkins' words in DA's post bring this question to my mind, which only has a little to do with the topic. I am NO RELIGIOUS SCHOLAR by any stretch of the imagination, so if anyone is of a mind to correct me, I'll take their comments to heart. All this is from personal observation, but not real study.

It seems to me that the fundamentalist Christian churches failed to move from Old Testament mentality to that of the New Testament. From what I gather, "salvation" is a personal thing. Nations, populations, groups or congregations are NOT granted or denied salvation, based on the mores or actions of the group. "Salvation" is granted to individuals only. The idea that an entire population is punished or elevated by God should be dead, shouldn't it? If so, why do America's fundies continue to attribute disasters, 9/11, etc. on the moral failings of the country as a whole?

My guess is that people like Blacknad would generally agree with me, and people like Anyman would not. I wouldn't mind hearing their thoughts, though.
Generally agree? Whole-heartedly agree!

I'm also impressed by your astute thinking on the issue and the fact that you see what many Christians don't see.

Now I know you have no belief in God, so please humour me for a moment while I talk as if we both agree he does exist...

There is nothing whatsoever in the New Testament that leads us to believe that God judges nations, and everything (as you point out) to the contrary.

When Christians wish to defend that position they really have nothing to back up their position. For example, they resort to this kind of reasoning:

"I was speaking with a pastor about my concern that God will have to judge our nation because of our unrighteousness. He startled me by saying that he didn't think God would do that. He said that the New Testament says nothing about God judging Gentile nations for their sin. You know what? He is absolutely right! I can find numerous verses in the Old Testament (e.g. Deuteronomy 18:9-12) about God holding the nations accountable for their wickedness, but not one in the New Testament. The practical outworking of this was that this pastor didn't see any need to try to work against the tide of abortion, homosexuality, divorce, or greed in our nation. It wouldn't matter anyway, since God wouldn't judge us nationally ."

Now the writer here is committing the logical fallacy, 'argumentum ad consequentiam'. He doesn't like the consequences of that belief so he won't accept it.

If Anyman takes the same position he may have a better argument, but it seems clear that Christianity is about individual and not collective accountability.

7/11, in my opinion, was not a divine issue, but a response, (by disgraceful ruthless zealots) to American foreign policy in the Middle East - amongst other distinctly human reasons.

Also, would it make sense that the Christian God judges a nation that is one of the most Christian on the face of the earth? Why not judge England which has rejected him and is about 2% Christian, if that.


But it doesn't surprise me that these Christians have a flagrant disregard for their scriptures. They are, after all, the same people who read Jesus' words, "love even your enemies', and then go out and maim or kill abortionists. They either have no interest in their scriptures or just don't understand them.

Maybe if God still judges nations he is judging America because of American Christians sinful actions ;-)

It's the same for those who take an obstinate view of Genesis and find that they can only hold a creationist position because the good book tells them to. In fact, they have little understanding about the purpose of Genesis. And without an understanding of what it was trying to achieve, we are divorced from an ability to actually understand it properly. So they assume it is a scientific account of the creation of the earth. Or worse than that, they are so afraid of a 'proof' for God being pulled from under their feet by the 'evil-lutionists' that they cling to 6 day creationism despite all contrary evidence. This is woeful.

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Blacknad wrote:
"I owe much to Dan who has been the most challenging and coherent atheist I have known."

First pint is on me. November 12th.
You must be joking - first pint is on me. Anyway I thought you didn't like 'that insipid rubbish the English call beer' or something to that effect :-)

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Pint of what is a decision yet to be made. ;-)


DA Morgan
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
All this talk about pints is making me thirsty. Perhaps DA is thinking of a pint of whiskey. I thouroughly enjoyed Yorkshire beer when I was there but that's 25 years ago.

Blacknad. I am not surprised at at englishman saying "7/11, in my opinion, was not a divine issue, but a response, (by disgraceful ruthless zealots) to American foreign policy in the Middle East - amongst other distinctly human reasons."

Unfortunately it's immpossible to change history but we live in hope that more people from the USA will soon see it the same way. I presume you meant 9/11 but these North Americans have an odd way with dates.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Thanks Terry.

Yes I did mean 9/11. I confused it with 7/7 which was our London underground bombing.

I debated for a time on an American Christian website and was astonished at their beliefs regarding 9/11 and the Iraq & Afganistan war. I found their undying respect and unconditional admiration for George Bush to be disturbing.

As an Englishman I find there is a fair amount about Blair that I like. His 'middle ground' politics has been helpful for this country, addressing the needs of the less fortunate but not crippling business and enterprise. However, his foreign policy is beyond belief. His legacy will always be marred by his decision to march into Iraq despite one and a half million people marching in protest in London (we normally never get off our backsides for anything less than being invaded by the Romans or French), and polls showing the British really wanted nothing to do with it.

I will always feel they made the decision long in advance and the only delaying factor was to give time to try and manipulate the public into supporting it.

I could have told them back then that if you mess in Iraq you risk a meltdown there - and lo and behold, what are we now seeing. And we arenow getting ready to pull out and leave them to clean up for themselves what we have started.

Anyway, the fact is that it's very easy to be critical of Blair and you won't find anyone here getting aggressive and calling me anti-English etc.

But to call into question American actions was a clear indication to my US Christians that I was an anti-American lunatic (of course not all on the site, but almost to a man). I was amazed at how vociferous they could be on this and a number of other issues. I found them disturbing and realised why America had such an issue with Christianity.

Sorry for ranting, but having lived in the Middle East and having a Lebanese wife, these things are very close to my heart.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Yes. My experience with Muslims outside NZ is confined to some time I spent in West Africa. I developed something of a sympathy for aspects of their religion. My time with them showed me that the 9/11 suicide bombers could hardly be called devout Muslims. They are recorded as drinking heavily in the time leading up to their act.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
P.S. I'm very grateful our government managed to keep us out of Iraq.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day,

The New Testiment and what it didn't mention is quoted in this thread. But what is the New Testiment anyway? Is it the word of God?

I get bored so I do random courses, one I finished a little while ago was Christian History from Christ to Constantine. I was fascinated by just how much of the New Testiment was meant to be in the New Testiment.

How accurate are the four basic Gospels of instance? And who wrote them and when? And of the rest of the bible, how did it get to be in the bible, and this includes the Old Testiment by the way?

The story is quite fascinating but not good if you wish to ascribe the words within the Bible to the word of God.

This is very much an aside. It seems that even modern societies require religion. Obviously the religion has to be less intrusive as scientific understanding expands. Can't really blame God for a drought when you understand the natural mechanism for it can we?

I do believe there was a study recently published that explained there is a portion of the human brain designed for religion. Can't remember the full explanation now but it seemed that there was a distinct evolutionary advantage to a group holding mystic beliefs because it then allowed for the survival of the group even if it meant the deliberate sacrifice of members of the group.

I have lived in muslim countries including Kuwait and working in Iraq, Iran and Saudi. The level of contempt for the precepts of the religion seemed to me to be directly related to the education of the individual. The uneducated expressed great fervour in most aspects of their religion, the educated drank, ignored dress codes, etc. But there were exceptions and they were the truly scary. Same with Christians actually. I've met some educated Christians that were also devout and they too were scary. There is a scientist geologist in Australia that despite his IQ and education manages to match all of the formations of Australia to the biblical events of the Old Testiment. He is not a man you wish to argue geology with.

I do find it strange that Iraq is often considered to be a war based on religion differences. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who gave lip service to the Islamic religion. If you don't count the fear of his secret police stiffling freedoms, Iraq actually was one of the most religiously tolerant societies in the Arab world. Women could drive, where mini skirts, own businesses.

But the current conflict has become an ideologic one. I just do not see it as Christain v Muslim but rather factions of Muslims attempting to dominate. I for one would not like to see a religious extremist group such as that ruling Iran in charge of a nuclear arsenal and rockets. I wouldn't like to see that happen in an aethiestic but fundamentalist country such as North Korea either.

Just my little contribution to further muddy the discussion.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
RicS wrote:

"I for one would not like to see a religious extremist group such as that ruling Iran in charge of a nuclear arsenal and rockets."

I think most of us would agree with that. However the problem goes back a long way. I think the West stuffed up with the Algerian election and the overthrow of the Shah. If we'd supported both these and encouraged a genuine democracy in each country I'm sure the religious extremists would have been voted out the next election! Most people don't like being told what to do and think all the time. Unfortunately by imposing sanctions, cutting off open debate with the outside world we drove the people to extremism. Anyone threatened will close ranks.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
The "West" has a long and far less than illustrious history of backing the wrong side.

When we start adhering to our principles as stated in the Magna Carta, Constitution, etc. rather than just serving short-term corporate financial interests things may change.

I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
I really enjoyed Stephen Colbert's interview with Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) last night (10/17/06). Stephen presented a very well stated point about [roughly summed up] how could a non-intelligent, or random, universe produce an intelligence that could write a book about God.

I'd like to restate the point as: How could a universe with increasing entropy produce increasingly organized life forms? It's a good argument, but then I remembered that "Life is nature's way of turning light into heat." -Richard Dawson ....(not a typo; not R. Dawkins)
It does seem that life is a more efficient way of turning light into heat, and human's (American's especially)have certainly increased that efficiency by one or more orders of magnitude.
Hey, if increasing entropy were linked to the universe's expansion, then maybe we are causing the acceleration of the expansion by being so "efficient."

"At best, a pause for thought; at worst, a little tongue in cheek." -Samwik
Thanks,
~Sam


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
2LOT says that the TOTAL entropy of an isolated system will not decrease. However, it doesn't say that entropy cannot decrease in pockets of that system.

If entropy decreases for the production of a living thing, it results in a net INCREASE for the entire system, because the environment of that living thing (which is the isolated system) will increase greatly . Therefore, the second law of thermo is not violated.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
FF: So, we are in agreement here; or am I missing something?
~Sam


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

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

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5