Is Richard Dawkins Dividing The World?

[Skeptisch]

On one side we have the naturalists who live within in the laws of nature, logic, and reason, and who demand scientific evidence to validate their reality. Most of them live quiet lives, guided by the scientific world view, searching for the scientific truth.

We also have the supernaturalists. They believe they know the unknowable, they appear to manufacture their own reality and sometimes even kill over disagreements who believes in the right fairytale.

Yes, in a way Dawkins helps dividing the world… into naturalists and supernaturalists. He suggests that training of decision-makers in the scientific ways of thinking would reduce wars and violence.

But rather that paraphrasing Dawkins, why not analyze and comment on some of his direct quotes.

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion, but that is not what is interesting about it. It is also incompatible with magic, but that also is not worth stressing. What is interesting about the scientific world view is that it is true, inspiring, remarkable and that it unites a whole lot of phenomena under a single heading.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Aptitude, environment, upbringing, etc... All are relevant when comparing human to human. Dawkins does an excellent job at getting people to ask questions for themselves they might not otherwise have thought to ask.

I think he is a bit misunderstood, and his frankness is seen as aggression and intent of attack by many.

I made a post some time ago, that Dawkins has actually killed God. I truly believe that.

 

[MSizer]

...I made a post some time ago, that Dawkins has actually killed God. I truly believe that.

Interesting. sounds a heck of a lot like Nietsche: "God is Dead, and he is dead because we have killed him."

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Interesting. sounds a heck of a lot like Nietsche: "God is Dead, and he is dead because we have killed him."

I here you refer to Nietsche a lot and I have not spent any time with him, but my opinion of Dawkins after spending some time with him is that he has brought human thought to the point where if one can comprehend what he actually says, there is little room for any version of God to remain.

Did Nietsche accomplish the same thing?

 

[MSizer]

I here you refer to Nietsche a lot and I have not spent any time with him, but my opinion of Dawkins after spending some time with him is that he has brought human thought to the point where if one can comprehend what he actually says, there is little room for any version of God to remain.

Did Nietsche accomplish the same thing?

No I don't think so. I don't think he was actually trying to argue that god does not exist, but that rather religion (mainly christianity I suppose) had morphed so much over the centuries that the original values of being christian weren't really what modern christians were living out. I think he believed that modern christianity was too easy compared to its early roots, where you had to be somewhat of an outcast to openly say you were christian, so you had to have guts to say it.

I don't think he convinced many people though. From what I know his lecture halls were never packed.

 

[logician]

I don't think he convinced many people though. From what I know his lecture halls were never packed.

Quantity does not indicate quality.

 

[Willamena]

Oh God, no. The world was divided long before Richard Dawkins, and in ways he hasn't yet gleened.

 

[Willamena]

I here you refer to Nietsche a lot and I have not spent any time with him, but my opinion of Dawkins after spending some time with him is that he has brought human thought to the point where if one can comprehend what he actually says, there is little room for any version of God to remain.

Did Nietsche accomplish the same thing?

Just so. And in a more sensible manner.

 

[footprints]

On one side we have the naturalists who live within in the laws of nature, logic, and reason, and who demand scientific evidence to validate their reality. Most of them live quiet lives, guided by the scientific world view, searching for the scientific truth.

We also have the supernaturalists. They believe they know the unknowable, they appear to manufacture their own reality and sometimes even kill over disagreements who believes in the right fairytale.

Yes, in a way Dawkins helps dividing the world… into naturalists and supernaturalists. He suggests that training of decision-makers in the scientific ways of thinking would reduce wars and violence.

But rather that paraphrasing Dawkins, why not analyze and comment on some of his direct quotes.

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion, but that is not what is interesting about it. It is also incompatible with magic, but that also is not worth stressing. What is interesting about the scientific world view is that it is true, inspiring, remarkable and that it unites a whole lot of phenomena under a single heading.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

Dawkins does anything but sit quietly. So therefore by this analogy he is not a naturalist. No, Dawkins is an Extremist Irrationalist.

Like all hypocrites, Dawkins can so clearly see the wrongs in others, but can never see the same wrong in himself.

Dawkins in the end only preaches to people of his belief pattern. Others of course speak freely pertaining to God, without him in the conversation, and have no need to shut up, just because of the prejudice Dawkins carries.

 

[Tiapan]

I dont know that he is dividing the world. From what I have seen his discussions tend to unite the world because he expands the knowledge base enlightening us thus driving back the darkness of superstition.

Cheers

 

[Charity]

Dawkins cannot be blamed for dividing the world any more than others.....
A lot of religions have caused enough division among themselves.....

 

[gnostic]

The world have always being divided.

 

[Baydwin]

Not unless you class "the world" as America, which I'll grant you many Americans seem to. I'm fairly sure most of the people on Earth have never heard of Richard Dawkins.

And I don't think he's dividing the world. Perhaps he's annoyed a lot of Christians and perhaps he's made some atheists more vocal, but I doubt he's actually de-converted all that many people with his verbal and literary rants.

 

[tarasan]

I personally do not think he has, I find his arguements very weak. He seems to play more on what people think of Relgion rather than what Relgion is, He does not understand theology at all. Id much rather listen to other, more intellectual Athiests to challenge my worldview than him. The reason he is liked is because he "throws dirt" as it were. Im not saying that He isnt good at his scientific field, but that ultimately his statements of Memes and the like really stop me from taking him seriously.

I prefer Dennet, the more philisophical Athiest. Also I have found Dennet to be much more respectful.

A negative review I know, but I really feel he gives nothing to the Athiest community other than a fundamentalist, to get a more clearer view of what Athiesm is and stands for, I feel others are more appropiate.

 

[Skeptisch]

Nietzsche was, like many philosophers then and now, misunderstood. It is not easy to misunderstand Dawkins. All Richard seems to say is that the supernatural does not exist and that science will eventually explain most things. And what science can’t explain may never be satisfactorily explained by anything or anyone, and that includes theology.

Thanks to good old Friedrich, Richard Strauss composed one of the most recognisable pieces of music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igAy4bG8Q6Q

Science’s definition of supernatural - not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws.
New Age charlatans’ definition of supernatural – something we can’t explain.

 

[sonofskeptish]

Dawkins does not dividing the world like religion does into "us" and "them", he's just makes clear the division between those who have room in their mind for supernatural explanations, from those who don't. More often than not, this seperates scientists from theologens, but there are always exceptions. The religious don't like him because they need the supernatural to maintain their faith so they see him as a threat and do what they always do with those they see as a threat.

 

[logician]

There's probably not more than 10 percent of the world that's even heard of Dawkins, and probably .1 percent that actually have read any of his works, some of which, BTW, are monumental achievements on the subject of evolution. So I don't think DAwkins is dividing the world.

 

[Smoke]

they see him as a threat and do what they always do with those they see as a threat.

That's as good an explanation as any for the overwrought reactions to him. The hostility towards Dawkins is so out of proportion to anything he says or does that the reaction almost has to be a visceral one.

 

[darkendless]

I personally do not think he has, I find his arguements very weak. He seems to play more on what people think of Relgion rather than what Relgion is, He does not understand theology at all.

Neither do people within individual religions. They whinge and whine about who is right.

I don't think anyone understands theology because everyone has a different and no less "correct" opinion of it.

 

[Skeptisch]

He [Dawkins] does not understand theology at all.

Theology is the study of God, or more generally the study of religious faith. Dawkins’ view is that there is no supernatural God and that the onus is on those who believe there is to come up with some scientific evidence to support their stance.

He also has nothing but contempt for blind, religious faith, so much so that he feels that faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith, he says, is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Dawkins and Dennett seem to be a perfect match to put some sense into the brains of the masses. One uses a sledge hammer and the other white gloves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lfTPTFN94o