Richard Dawkins

[dang65]

So little harm? Let's have a look at a few things:

Crusades
Spanish Inquisition (both in South America and against European 'witches' for example)
Anti-Jewish pogroms
Religious wars in Europe of 17th century
Communal murders at partition of India
Taliban / Al-Qaeda

This is a bizarre list which could easily be countered with a list of completely non-religion related mass slaughter. If all large scale human killings were purely one religion fighting against another religion then I'd see your point, but that's obviously nowhere near the case.

[Old Greg]

I'm not sure I get the point of your post? You're saying that this "conservative evangelical lobby" (whoever they are) are firmly against the theory of global warming, but what I'm saying is that a huge percentage of the general public are disbelieving of the "theory" as well, including a lot of people who are completely convinced by evolutionary "theory" to the point of anger against those who prefer to believe in their own alternatives. Those alternatives (creationism and a higher being and that) don't cause any trouble, any more than watching Doctor Who does. Why worry about it? They're wrong, end of story. Just leave them to it.

Meanwhile, climate change is real. It's happening and we're incredibly close to disaster for the human race (though not for the planet which has been through plenty of this sort of thing before and is probably quite looking forward to the entertainment after a rather dull Holocene period).

It's not just religious nutters that have their heads in the sand, and what I don't get is why the same rational and educated people who so angrily protest against religion aren't up in arms about climate change.

The conservative evangelical lobby are Bush's base and they can mobilise 10s of millions of voters. You're right that other people doubt global warming (plenty of 4x4 drivers here take this position) but the religious people I was talking about believe it because of their religion, and they have great influence of US policy.

Evolution/creationism - I do care what other people believe because I care about reason vs nonsense, but they're welcome to believe what they want. The problem is that they will indoctrinate their kids to believe nonsense and they will lobby for nonsense to be taught in schools alongside reason. Nobody tries to get Dr. Who taught in physics classes as an alternative theory to Einsteinian physics.

I don't know why more people aren't up in arms about climate change, but argument and academic argument will exist on many subjects and religion vs reason is one of them - and I think the two subjects are linked.

[Charles Foster Kane]

Old Greg,

I've wanted to read 'The God Delusion' for a long time, however I've been put off by comments that Dawkins is too much of a fundamentalist in his own (non-religious) way, and that this comes across as grating.

So, do you recommend?

Exactly, he is a fundamentalist, if he was not he would be agnostic or a deist. I don't think it's particularly clever to say 'I believe there is not', when you could just sit on the fence and hedge your bets by saying 'there may or may not be a god'. Think I'll side with someone who understands the universe at a level none of us nor Dawkins ever will, Stephen Hawking (who is certainly agnostic or at least a deist).

Dawkins whole argument is based on lack of evidence primarily, yet I bet there are other theories he accepts without evidence (the big bang anyone?). It's all yarbles it you ask me, keep your mind open and don't commit yourself either way if you so choose, but keep exploring all possibilities, the sure-fire way not to become a fundamentalist.

[Old Greg]

Exactly, he is a fundamentalist, if he was not he would be agnostic or a deist. I don't think it's particularly clever to say 'I believe there is not', when you could just sit on the fence and hedge your bets by saying 'there may or may not be a god'. Think I'll side with someone who understands the universe at a level none of us nor Dawkins ever will, Stephen Hawking (who is certainly agnostic or at least a deist).

Dawkins whole argument is based on lack of evidence primarily, yet I bet there are other theories he accepts without evidence (the big bang anyone?). It's all yarbles it you ask me, keep your mind open and don't commit yourself either way if you so choose, but keep exploring all possibilities, the sure-fire way not to become a fundamentalist.

Dawkins gives strong arguments why God almost certainly doesn't exist. He would also argue that he's not a fundamentalist, becuase if someone offered strong scientific evidence that God does exist, he'd change his mind. A fundamentalist (Christian for example) offered strong evidence that the Earth is billions of years old will merely say 'My book says otherwise'.

My reading of Dawkins on the big bang is not that he 'believes' it, but that he believes it to be a much more likely explanation than God, becuase the evidence is against God. But that there are other theories to explain the universe and that new ones may come along, and that even if they are all wrong, the evidence is still against God and science is how we will move towards an understanding of where the univers comes from.

Dawkins and Hawking operate in different disciplines. Hawking is in a better position to explain cosmology, Dawkins is in a better place to explain the evolution of life, the existence of moraility etc.

I've found the book liberating - I've alwyas been one of these atheists who treats religion respectfully, but I've been woken up that I should see it as nonsense - fairies at the bottom of the garden. I won't start being mean to religious people, but it's time we started giving them so much respect in public debate.

[Charles Foster Kane]

Dawkins gives strong arguments why God almost certainly doesn't exist. He would also argue that he's not a fundamentalist, becuase if someone offered strong scientific evidence that God does exist, he'd change his mind. A fundamentalist (Christian for example) offered strong evidence that the Earth is billions of years old will merely say 'My book says otherwise'.

My reading of Dawkins on the big bang is not that he 'believes' it, but that he believes it to be a much more likely explanation than God, becuase the evidence is against God. But that there are other theories to explain the universe and that new ones may come along, and that even if they are all wrong, the evidence is still against God and science is how we will move towards an understanding of where the univers comes from.

Dawkins and Hawking operate in different disciplines. Hawking is in a better position to explain cosmology, Dawkins is in a better place to explain the evolution of life, the existence of moraility etc.

I've found the book liberating - I've alwyas been one of these atheists who treats religion respectfully, but I've been woken up that I should see it as nonsense - fairies at the bottom of the garden. I won't start being mean to religious people, but it's time we started giving them so much respect in public debate.

I've heard Dawkins arguments so know what they are. So Dawkins overlooks a lack of evidence when it comes to the big bang because in his world it makes more sense to him? That's somewhat inconsistent, when he's harping on about fairies at the bottom of the garden and the burden of evidence being on the person making an assertion etc. in relation to God.

There are definite holes in his arguments, but he knows how to structure his case well as he has given it a lot of thought (utilitarianism defining the moral worth of an action for example, addressing the classic argument of are you only being moral because of the law of the land being one).

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe Dawkins isn't who you think he is and this is one big test of faith?

[Old Greg]

I've heard Dawkins arguments so know what they are. So Dawkins overlooks a lack of evidence when it comes to the big bang because in his world it makes more sense to him? That's somewhat inconsistent, when he's harping on about fairies at the bottom of the garden and the burden of evidence being on the person making an assertion etc. in relation to God.

There are definite holes in his arguments, but he knows how to structure his case well as he has given it a lot of thought (utilitarianism defining the moral worth of an action for example, addressing the classic argument of are you only being moral because of the law of the land being one).

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe Dawkins isn't who you think he is and this is one big test of faith?

We've both read it but seem to have understood it differently. My reading is not that Dawkins believes in the big bang despite a lack of evidence. It's that God is such a bad and unlikely explanation, that there must be a scientific explanation. The big bang is such a theory and it better explains it than God. It may well be wrong. But when there's a better explanation, it will be a scientific one. He doesn't just say the burden of proof is on those who believe in God (which has always been my view) but argues why God almost certainly doesn't exist.

I like the idea that Dawkins is a test of faith. Kind of like fossils, I reckon.

[Charles Foster Kane]

We've both read it but seem to have understood it differently. My reading is not that Dawkins believes in the big bang despite a lack of evidence. It's that God is such a bad and unlikely explanation, that there must be a scientific explanation. The big bang is such a theory and it better explains it than God. It may well be wrong. But when there's a better explanation, it will be a scientific one. He doesn't just say the burden of proof is on those who believe in God (which has always been my view) but argues why God almost certainly doesn't exist.

I like the idea that Dawkins is a test of faith. Kind of like fossils, I reckon.

I have a load of responses to that, but I'd recommend reading 'a brief history of time' by Stephen Hawking if you haven't, as Hawking addresses this god versus scientific theory and the possibility of coexistence between the two very well and it would save me a lot of typing (hence my reference to Steve in my original post).

[Old Greg]

I have a load of responses to that, but I'd recommend reading 'a brief history of time' by Stephen Hawking if you haven't, as Hawking addresses this god versus scientific theory and the possibility of coexistence between the two very well and it would save me a lot of typing (hence my reference to Steve in my original post).

I'll have to save that for a different time.

[Xenophon]

I have a load of responses to that, but I'd recommend reading 'a brief history of time' by Stephen Hawking if you haven't, as Hawking addresses this god versus scientific theory and the possibility of coexistence between the two very well and it would save me a lot of typing (hence my reference to Steve in my original post).

I own a copy of 'A Brief History of Time', but have never managed to read it. Every time I try, I hear his 'voice' when I read the words and it puts me off...

[Old Greg]

I have a load of responses to that, but I'd recommend reading 'a brief history of time' by Stephen Hawking if you haven't, as Hawking addresses this god versus scientific theory and the possibility of coexistence between the two very well and it would save me a lot of typing (hence my reference to Steve in my original post).

Also, why is it when people say that their version of God exists, they don't automatically get labelled fundamentatlist or intolerant (even though they're saying everyone else's version is wrong). As soon as someone comes up with a well reasoned and passionate argument that God doesn't exist, he gets vilified as intolerant etc.