Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[not nom]

From the Bible:

yeah, that's relevant.

next up: the cruelties committed by atheists.

stay tun-- *falls asleep*

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

Of course they weren't. That's not what I was arguing. The only ones anywhere near that kind of understanding are off in their forests or up in the mountains, and from what I understand of their attitudes, they don't really talk with others. They certainly don't write anything down.

I don't view these ancient texts solely in terms of their religious usage.

 

[Riverwolf]

yeah, that's relevant.

next up: the cruelties committed by atheists.

stay tun-- *falls asleep*

After all, the cruelties committed by atheists were all due to their atheism, and couldn't possibly be because of conflicting political ideologies. :sarcastic

(Not directed at you; I'm reinforcing your post.)

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

The point is solid. The thing is, the statement should have been phrased better. As it stands, it reinforces the notion that he doesn't really know much of anything about religion.

 

[Skeptisch]

next up: the cruelties committed by atheists.

You may think of Hitler, but you would know that he was a Christian. But if there are any atheists who are murderers at least they don’t do it in the name of a God.

Steven Weinberg (Nobel laureate in physics): “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil — but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.”

 

[Straw Dog]

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)

What is he even talking about here? He's obviously very interested in the concept and hypothesis of God by the fact of all the books and lectures he's given on the subject.

 

[Storm]

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.

I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong. Dawkins said "ALL." Not 'most,' not the majority. Therefore, if even one person doesn't fit the bill, the statement is false. I don't.

 

[nnmartin]

You may think of Hitler, but you would know that he was a Christian. But if there are any atheists who are murderers at least they don’t do it in the name of a God.

Hitler wasn't a Christian.

Certainly not in the traditional sense - he may have had a very warped view of God and used some Christian beliefs to fit his agenda but not much different to a Satanist using a warped version of the Bible.

 

[Skeptisch]

As it stands, it reinforces the notion that he doesn't really know much of anything about religion.

You might be right but if ones brain is wired for reason and evidence wouldn’t science be your chosen field and not (abrahamic) religion with its virtues attitude toward faith, often blind faith?

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world”.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

 

[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)

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 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)

I would say that these biblical extracts amongst many others are way more interesting than what Dawkins has to offer.

How many internet forums are there set up just to discuss Christianity and how many for BoreKins?

 

[Apex]

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world”.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

What an incredibly pathetic and narrow view of religion. It is also incredibly wrong.

 

[nnmartin]

the Dawkins list so far :

The Blind Watchmaker = Dross ,waffle and yet more waffle.

The Greatest Show on Earth = 6th grade Bilology class re-hashed into waffle with attempts at humor added, in lame attempt to keep up interest levels.

Unweaving the Rainbow = Psuedo-literature analysis for armchair atheists to read on backpack trip around Peru whilst taking a break from the Celestine Prophecy.

The God Delusion = Mix mash of mumbo jumbo small talk and pedantic critiscisms of God in any form .Essential backup for those scared rigid of religion.

 

[Skeptisch]

Therefore, if even one person doesn't fit the bill, the statement is false.

You are of course correct. But don’t you think you do a little semantic nitpicking here? After all he does follow up with “some of us just go one God further”. Maybe you should read his whole quote again?

Are you not atheistic about some Gods other than your own? Do you believe in every God there is?

 

[Riverwolf]

You might be right but if ones brain is wired for reason and evidence wouldn’t science be your chosen field and not (abrahamic) religion with its virtues attitude toward faith, often blind faith?

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world”.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

Another absolutist statement that isn't necessarily true...

Following a religion, and understanding religion in general, aren't the same thing. If someone isn't educated in a particular field, then he or she shouldn't speak on that subject like an authority on it.

It'd be like me trying to make blanket statements about mathematics when I can't even get to college level math. (No, really; I flunked out of Algebra II/Trigonometry in High School, and the teacher was awesome, so it was 100% my fault.)

 

[nnmartin]

The study of religion has great benefits even if you don't believe in it.

think parables, symbolism, allegory, philosophy, literature, history etc..

many uses.

 

[gnomon]

The study of religion has great benefits even if you don't believe in it.

think parables, symbolism, allegory, philosophy, literature, history etc..

many uses.

Dawkins agrees with that statement. He mentions it in his books. Those things I doubt a single person taking exception with Dawkins' statements have ever read.

 

[Skwim]

What an incredibly pathetic and narrow view of religion. It is also incredibly wrong.

I do think Dawkins overstated the point; however, in the beginning science did have a mighty struggle against the Christian church because those running the religion didn't feel science had any right to challenge its beliefs. The church was determined that its followers only be exposed to a view of the world in keeping with its teachings, and none others. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake. Johannes Kepler was hounded by the Lutherans. Galileo was tried by the Inquisition, forced to recant his statements, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Moreover:

"The Condemnations of 1210-1277 were enacted at the medieval University of Paris to restrict certain teachings as being heretical. These included a number of medieval theological teachings, but most importantly the physical treatises of Aristotle."
Source Wikipedia

​

The point here is that religion has indeed wanted "us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”. The church wanted its people to retain its misunderstanding of the world rather than root out the facts. Even today, as evidenced in my recent OP on Kentucky's Commissioner of Education, this mind set is still with us.. This idiot said he would not let evolution be taught as a fact in Kentucky's schools because such a fact has not been established, and agreed that the Biblical account of the diversity of life merited just as much attention.

 

[nnmartin]

gnomon: ok , perhaps he does agree with that statement then - good for him!

I still don't fancy his nonsense though.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

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)

Ironically, this is not against religion at all. It actually shows its validity. (Yes, that means the last phrase, too.)

 

[Riverwolf]

Dawkins agrees with that statement. He mentions it in his books. Those things I doubt a single person taking exception with Dawkins' statements have ever read.

Those statements betray a fundamental misunderstanding, which means he never said them at all, they were quote-mined, they are inaccurate summaries of something he said, or they're things he said in interviews or in passing when caught on the spot without having much time to think about them.

If Dawkins agrees that religion contains all those gems, he wouldn't make blanket statements like "[religion] teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

While I do agree that this may appear to be true, the fact is that most religions do try to provide an understanding of the world. The problem is that often this understanding is flawed. Therefore, the thesis of the statement is somewhat accurate, the statement itself is inaccurate.