Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[Skwim]

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)

If that's what he believes then that's what he believes.

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)

If that's what the feels then that's what the feels.

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

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)

I agree. It's like listening people go on and on about their plans for the future.

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

Obviously.

 

[Storm]

The quote was:
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

Yes, I know. Repetition does nothing to improve its veracity.

 

[Skeptisch]

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

The statement was:
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

 

[Riverwolf]

The statement was:
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

Right, and both Storm and I prove the statement wrong, since it's an absolute statement (and therefore one that assumes the definite non-existence of a person who does not fit this criteria), and neither Storm nor I, nor tons of other people, fit this criteria.

As a scientist, I'm rather surprised he made such a statement; it's a blatant fallacy: just because you've never seen a green bird nor heard of one existing, doesn't automatically mean a green bird does not exist, and therefore it becomes fallacious to make the definite statement that green birds don't exist.

 

[Father Heathen]

(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. ^_^)

Well, in the future of course our present day society will be considered primitive; culture is supposed to evolve, progress, advance, etc.

As for text, however, the difference lies with what it advocates; the old testament for example called for the torture and murder over petty, trivial and arbitrary offenses.

And considering god is supposed to be a timeless embodiment of mercy, justice and righteousness, I think that should make it rather easy to determine whether or not something was actually inspired by god.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, in the future of course our present day society will be considered primitive; culture is supposed to evolve, progress, advance, etc.

As for text, however, the difference lies with what it advocates; the old testament for example called for the torture and murder over petty, trivial and arbitrary offenses.

We still seem to do that. From what I've seen, in terms of our relationships with other nations, we're all still tribes; the tribes are just much bigger than before.

Besides, that's the Torah. It's best to keep the texts of the Tanakh separate; different texts are about different things: the Book of Esther is, for example, a fantastic story about a strong woman who stands up to a corrupted king, risking her life, to liberate her people.

And considering god is supposed to be a timeless embodiment of mercy, justice and righteousness,

Uh... not necessarily.

 

[Father Heathen]

Stop beating around the bush and get to your point.

 

[Skeptisch]

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

Here is a bit more from that theological ignoramus:
We who doubt that "theology" is a subject at all, or who compare it with the study of leprechauns, are eagerly hoping to be proved wrong. Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university. But as for theology itself, defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God", a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today's universities.

Richard Dawkins
Oxford

 

[Skwim]

Here is a bit more from that theological ignoramus:
We who doubt that "theology" is a subject at all, or who compare it with the study of leprechauns, are eagerly hoping to be proved wrong. Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university. But as for theology itself, defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God", a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today's universities.

Richard Dawkins
Oxford

What a great observation. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Stop beating around the bush and get to your point.

Point is: in the case of the Tanakh, individual books should be measured on their own, and not next to texts that happened to be lumped in next to them by committee several centuries after the texts were first written. Therefore, some texts become quite good reads, at the very least (at least in terms of the ancient texts, so if you already don't enjoy those, then, well, that's just your opinion), while others are not so great.

Ancient lawbooks (such as the law sections of the Torah) are rarely any good, and often contradictory. The Law of Manu comes to mind as one of the worst in that case.

The final point is: don't insult the intelligence of the ancients; they weren't any less or more intelligent than us. They just lacked the knowledge that we have. If they had the knowledge that we have, they'd have been just like us.

Let's not forget that throughout the world, these "primitive people" invented democracy, freedom of religion, equality for women, universities, complex writing, astronomy, medicine...

When I think "primitive", I generally think cave-dwelling or pre-agriculture societies. I don't think it's fair to metaphorically and arbitrarily attribute it to societies just because they seem backwards to us, since in many ways, we're backwards to them.

 

[cablescavenger]

Right, and both Storm and I prove the statement wrong, since it's an absolute statement (and therefore one that assumes the definite non-existence of a person who does not fit this criteria), and neither Storm nor I, nor tons of other people, fit this criteria.

As a scientist, I'm rather surprised he made such a statement; it's a blatant fallacy: just because you've never seen a green bird nor heard of one existing, doesn't automatically mean a green bird does not exist, and therefore it becomes fallacious to make the definite statement that green birds don't exist.

When the statement is put in context you have proved nothing. If anything it sounds like you agree with him.
How many Gods do you believe in?

 

[Riverwolf]

Here is a bit more from that theological ignoramus:
We who doubt that "theology" is a subject at all, or who compare it with the study of leprechauns, are eagerly hoping to be proved wrong. Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university. But as for theology itself, defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God", a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today's universities.

Richard Dawkins
Oxford

Entirely irrelevant; all that shows is that he's aware that religious universities have intelligent people, and mostly operate like any other university.

Doesn't make his statement any less incorrect.

 

[Riverwolf]

When the statement is put in context you have proved nothing. If anything it sounds like you agree with him.
How many Gods do you believe in?

How many have ever been worshiped?

 

[cablescavenger]

Better in what sense? He made a false statement, debunked by my very existence.

If you are not monotheistic you are in a minority, so it is not debunked, because he is talking about the total number of Gods ever and saying he just disbelieves one more than most.

For it to be debunked you would have to be believe in more than one God, and so would most believers, yet we know this is not the case.

 

[cablescavenger]

How many have ever been worshiped?

That is irrelevant to his statement, and alters it not one jot. How many of them do you believe in?

 

[Father Heathen]

Point is: in the case of the Tanakh, individual books should be measured on their own, and not next to texts that happened to be lumped in next to them by committee several centuries after the texts were first written. Therefore, some texts become quite good reads, at the very least (at least in terms of the ancient texts, so if you already don't enjoy those, then, well, that's just your opinion), while others are not so great.

Regarding their value as far as having value for being historical and cultural relics, sure. But as far as representing some actual divine, cosmic truth? Hardly.

Ancient lawbooks (such as the law sections of the Torah) are rarely any good, and often contradictory. The Law of Manu comes to mind as one of the worst in that case.

The final point is: don't insult the intelligence of the ancients; they weren't any less or more intelligent than us. They just lacked the knowledge that we have. If they had the knowledge that we have, they'd have been just like us.

Well obviously. That lack of knowledge is exactly my point.

Let's not forget that throughout the world, these "primitive people" invented democracy, freedom of religion, equality for women, universities, complex writing, astronomy, medicine...

But all of that didn't originate from just one single society.

When I think "primitive", I generally think cave-dwelling or pre-agriculture societies. I don't think it's fair to metaphorically and arbitrarily attribute it to societies just because they seem backwards to us, since in many ways, we're backwards to them.

In same way that the brain surgeon is "backwards" to the witch doctor but I think we shall allow reason, understanding and knowledge to determine what is and isn't truly backwards.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is irrelevant to his statement, and alters it not one jot. How many of them do you believe in?

Actually, it's very important, depending on how we're defining the word "god".

In this case, I define it as something worshiped with reverence, ritual, supplication, etc. that lasts longer than the average human life, and/or acts as some kind of benefactor.

Beyond that, how do we distinguish individual gods? Do we consider gods only in terms of their mythological characters? Or do we go beyond that and define them only in terms of that thing which inspired that mythological character? After all, not everyone who currently worships Shiva believes literally the stories in which the God is a character. I imagine this would have been the case in ancient days, as well, in which not all worshipers of Zeus believed that he was exactly like the character in the tales. (I, for one, do not believe Athena would be the kind of woman who would care about her "fairness", or the kind of woman who would bribe someone.)

 

[Riverwolf]

Regarding their value as far as having value for being historical and cultural relics, sure. But as far as representing some actual divine, cosmic truth? Hardly.

What about as enjoyable literature?

As an aside, I don't believe that Rta (the Cosmic Order, Truth, etc.) can even be adequately captured into a book, so no book contains it; they can only speak of it.

Well obviously. That lack of knowledge is exactly my point.

But knowledge is not the only defining characteristic of humanity or cultures.

But all of that didn't originate from just one single society.

Right, and nothing ever has.

Even today, different cultures are better at different sciences. Japan is far superior to America in terms of robotic and computer technology, but our medical science is second to none AFAIK.

In same way that the brain surgeon is "backwards" to the witch doctor but I think we shall allow reason, understanding and knowledge to determine what is and isn't truly backwards.

Well, if knowledge is the only standard by which a culture is measured, then they're still not backwards, because they were before us. Backwards, at least to me, would imply continuing to live in these old days despite advancements being made elsewhere.

But even still, we're backwards in terms of due respect for family, elders, etc. Many of us are backwards in terms of our discipline, such as myself. Even in terms of knowledge, it doesn't take much looking around to realize that America's collective knowledge is far behind the rest of the Western world lately. And don't even get me started on the degeneration of the English language.

I don't just use the amount of knowledge to measure a society, or a person. The kindly, respectful ingoramus is superior to the rude, harsh, and spiteful scientist.

 

[Father Heathen]

Cool beans, but the point remains is that they were no closer (in fact much further away if anything) to understanding or speaking for god than you or I.

 

[gnomon]

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)

Of course it is.

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)

I agree.

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

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)

I agree.

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

I understand his point. This statement is pointed at those who adhere to a specific, defined God and deride atheism even though by their own definition of God they exclude other visions. An atheist simply doesn't believe in any of them.