Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[Skeptisch]

Let’s try to take issue with what we know Richard agrees with, rather than with what we think he agrees with. Tell us what, in your opinion, is wrong with the following quotes? Or post a Dawkins quote you want to criticise.

I believe that an orderly universe, one indifferent to human preoccupations, in which everything has an explanation even if we still have a long way to go before we find it, is a more beautiful, more wonderful place than a universe tricked out with capricious ad hoc magic.
-- Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (contributed by Ray Franz)

The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living is quite finite.
-- Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder (1998), p. x., quoted from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)

In childhood our credulity serves us well. It helps us to pack, with extraordinary rapidity, our skulls full of the wisdom of our parents and our ancestors. But if we don't grow out of it in the fullness of time, our ... nature makes us a sitting target for astrologers, mediums, gurus, evangelists, and quacks. We need to replace the automatic credulity of childhood with the constructive skepticism of adult science.
-- Richard Dawkins , Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder (1998), page 142–3

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)

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-- Richard Dawkins, transcribed from a short video titled, Russel's Teapot.wmv found on yoism.org

 

[Photonic]

I don't see a single issue with anything here.

 

[Storm]

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)

If people DON'T think God (or any other subject, for that matter) is interesting, THEY should just shut up about it. Otherwise they're just trolls.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-- Richard Dawkins, transcribed from a short video titled, Russel's Teapot.wmv found on yoism.org

The absolute nature of the phrasing renders this one as false as 2+2=7.

 

[nnmartin]

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)

Wrong!

God a lot more interesting than the stale old tripe that Dawkins comes up with.

I think that quote needs reversing.

if people think Dawkins 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.
-- God

 

[Skeptisch]

if people think Dawkins 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.
-- God

So how about this, God?

The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living is quite finite.
-- Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder (1998), p. x., quoted from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)

 

[Father Heathen]

Wrong!

God a lot more interesting than the stale old tripe that Dawkins comes up with.

I think that quote needs reversing.

if people think Dawkins 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.
-- God

But we don't hear god saying that. However, putting words in god's mouth pretty much sums up what religion is.

 

[nnmartin]

there are many interesting books on God - far more interesting in fact that all of Dawkins' offerings put together.

some well known titles : The Bible , The Koran , The Bhagavad-Gita, The mysteries of the Tarot.

Perhaps give them a try sometime and then compare with Dawkins' atheist ramblings.

 

[Skeptisch]

The absolute nature of the phrasing renders this one as false as 2+2=7.

Surly you can do better that this! Maybe this one is more to your liking?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

 

[Storm]

Surly you can do better that this!

Better in what sense? He made a false statement, debunked by my very existence. I rejected the statement, what more is there to do?

Maybe this one is more to your liking?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

No more than I would expect any theological ignoramus to say.

 

[Father Heathen]

there are many interesting books on God - far more interesting in fact that all of Dawkins' offerings put together.

some well known titles : The Bible , The Koran , The Bhagavad-Gita, The mysteries of the Tarot.

Perhaps give them a try sometime and then compare with Dawkins' atheist ramblings.

But those books only reflect the primitive perceptions and portrays of god by the ancient cultures that wrote them rather than reflect the actual nature of any real god.

 

[Riverwolf]

In childhood our credulity serves us well. It helps us to pack, with extraordinary rapidity, our skulls full of the wisdom of our parents and our ancestors. But if we don't grow out of it in the fullness of time, our ... nature makes us a sitting target for astrologers, mediums, gurus, evangelists, and quacks. We need to replace the automatic credulity of childhood with the constructive skepticism of adult science.
-- Richard Dawkins , Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder (1998), page 142–3

Mostly just a misunderstanding of the word "guru"; a Guru is someone who, by literal translation, "removes darkness." Therefore, from a strictly linguistic stance, a guru can be any teacher.

Otherwise, a Guru can be a personal teacher with whom the student (or shishya) has a very personal relationship (akin to the Master/Apprentice relationship in the Jedi).

Therefore, a Guru is not on the same level as astrologers, mediums, etc.

Otherwise, I agree.

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)

TBH, I can apply this to any opinionated interest, and therefore it doesn't really have any power.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

-- Richard Dawkins, transcribed from a short video titled, Russel's Teapot.wmv found on yoism.org

Well, I have more complex beliefs than that, which, in simple terms, can be described in a paradox: I'm both an atheist towards Gods I don't worship, and a theist towards them.

 

[Skeptisch]

there are many interesting books on God - far more interesting in fact that all of Dawkins' offerings put together...some well known titles : The Bible

From the Bible:

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

 

[Storm]

But those books only reflect the primitive perceptions and portrays of god by the ancient cultures that wrote them rather than reflect the actual nature of any real god.

Karen Armstrong, then. A little history would serve him well.

 

[Riverwolf]

Surly you can do better that this! Maybe this one is more to your liking?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

No, it doesn't necessarily. An absolutist statement that isn't necessarily true.

 

[Riverwolf]

But those books only reflect the primitive perceptions and portrays of god by the ancient cultures that wrote them rather than reflect the actual nature of any real god.

Well, I wouldn't call any of those texts "primitive", since "primitive" people are generally defined to lack any sort of writing, and three of the four have all kinds of philosophy that can still be applied today.

 

[cablescavenger]

Let’s try to take issue with what we know Richard agrees with, rather than with what we think he agrees with. Tell us what, in your opinion, is wrong with the following quotes? Or post a Dawkins quote you want to criticise.

I believe that an orderly universe, one indifferent to human preoccupations, in which everything has an explanation even if we still have a long way to go before we find it, is a more beautiful, more wonderful place than a universe tricked out with capricious ad hoc magic.
-- Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (contributed by Ray Franz)

The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living is quite finite.
-- Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder (1998), p. x., quoted from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)

In childhood our credulity serves us well. It helps us to pack, with extraordinary rapidity, our skulls full of the wisdom of our parents and our ancestors. But if we don't grow out of it in the fullness of time, our ... nature makes us a sitting target for astrologers, mediums, gurus, evangelists, and quacks. We need to replace the automatic credulity of childhood with the constructive skepticism of adult science.
-- Richard Dawkins , Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder (1998), page 142–3

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)

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-- Richard Dawkins, transcribed from a short video titled, Russel's Teapot.wmv found on yoism.org

IMO Right. I am sad that this is not the same for everyone.

 

[Riverwolf]

The problem with Dawkins is that, while he is undoubtedly very intelligent and well-learned in his field of science, the man clearly only has a very basic, and severely biased, knowledge of religion that makes virtually anything he says about it untrustworthy.

 

[Storm]

The problem with Dawkins is that, while he is undoubtedly very intelligent and well-learned in his field of science, the man clearly only has a very basic, and severely biased, knowledge of religion that makes virtually anything he says about it untrustworthy.

Hear hear!

"She didn't say much, but she said it loud."

 

[Father Heathen]

Well, I wouldn't call any of those texts "primitive", since "primitive" people are generally defined to lack any sort of writing, and three of the four have all kinds of philosophy that can still be applied today.

They're definitely primitive by modern standards. What nuggets of wisdom they may have contained are hardly exclusive or original to the texts and are also overshadowed by the tomes' atrocious absurdities. The ratio of good content to garbage isn't enough to redeem the texts.

 

[Riverwolf]

They're definitely primitive by modern standards. What nuggets of wisdom they may have contained are hardly exclusive or original to the text and are also overshadowed by the tomes' atrocious absurdities. The ratio of good content to garbage isn't enough to redeem the texts.

Well, considering that the Bible, at least, is not even a single work, anyway, but a collection, I prefer to take each text in it as an individual, so that each section can stand on its own merits without being dragged down by bad stuff in a different text written three hundred years earlier.

Besides, in this case, we're not just talking about the Bible or the Qur'an. Have you read a decent translation of the Gita?

(Besides, by this logic, there never has been and never will be a society that isn't primitive, or a text that isn't garbage. ^_^)