Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[nnmartin]

it is stretching it a bit to call science "a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest music and poetry can deliver' - can't quite see the comparison myself.

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

No, the Church wanted to retain its understanding of the world, not realizing that it was a misunderstanding. That's one religion, and not an adequate representative for all religions.

It should be noted that scientists did exist during this time, and much of what they found was perfectly acceptable by the Church... as long as it didn't disagree with Church doctrine. Therefore, they didn't want to maintain a misunderstanding of the world deliberately like some kind of illuminati group trying to keep everyone dumb.

 

[Riverwolf]

it is stretching it a bit to call science "a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest music and poetry can deliver' - can't quite see the comparison myself.

Different strokes for different folks... a pearl of wisdom that theists and atheists alike seem to frequently forget. lol

 

[Skeptisch]

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.

Wow!

Here are some other reviews.

The Blind Watchmaker
Dawkins patiently and clearly identifies those aspects of evolution that people find hard to believe, and removes the barriers to credibility one by one.

The Greatest Show on Earth
It is brilliantly describing the multifarious and massive evidence for evolution -- evidence that gives the lie to the notion that evolution is 'only a theory.' This important and timely book is a must-read for Darwin Year. -- Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution Is True

Unweaving the Rainbow
It is the product of a beguiling and fascinating mind and one generous enough to attempt to include all willing readers in its brilliantly informed enthusiasm. - Melvyn Bragg, The Observer

The God Delusion
Let children learn about different faiths, let them notice their incompatibility, and let them draw their own conclusions about the consequences of that incompatibility. As for whether they are "valid," let them make up their own minds when they are old enough to do so.

 

[Storm]

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?

Why? You think it's a new idea?

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

In my way, yes.

 

[Tristesse]

it is stretching it a bit to call science "a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest music and poetry can deliver' - can't quite see the comparison myself.

You don't see how discoveries of the universe in which poetry and music are allowed to thrive is just as aesthetic?

 

[Skwim]

No, the Church wanted to retain its understanding of the world, not realizing that it was a misunderstanding.

Sentencing people to death, putting them through an inquisition, and hounding them goes far beyond a mere "want[ing] to retain its understanding of the world."

That's one religion, and not an adequate representative for all religions.

Aside from a few exceptions outside the reach of Christianity, science was done under the watchful eye of the church.

It should be noted that scientists did exist during this time, and much of what they found was perfectly acceptable by the Church... as long as it didn't disagree with Church doctrine. Therefore, they didn't want to maintain a misunderstanding of the world deliberately like some kind of illuminati group trying to keep everyone dumb.

So scientific research that only conformed to the preconceptions of the church wouldn't help maintain its misunderstandings? Yeah, right.

 

[Riverwolf]

Sentencing people to death, putting them through an inquisition, and hounding them goes far beyond a mere "want[ing] to retain its understanding of the world."

How would you put it, then?

Aside from a few exceptions outside the reach of Christianity, science was done under the watchful eye of the church.

How is that a response to what I said? "The Church" refers, in this case, to the Catholic Church at the time, and no other form of Christianity, let alone non-Christian religions.

So scientific research that only conformed to the preconceptions of the church wouldn't help maintain its misunderstandings? Yeah, right.

Uh... what the heck is this sentence supposed to be saying?

 

[Skwim]

How would you put it, then?

As I said, the church was determined that its members only be exposed to a view of the world in keeping with its teachings, and none others. Anything that challenged the teachings of the church was seen as an enemy of the church.

How is that a response to what I said? "The Church" refers, in this case, to the Catholic Church at the time, and no other form of Christianity, let alone non-Christian religions.

Well, you said

"That's one religion, and not an adequate representative for all religions,"
​

which I took as noting that singling out the conflict between science and the Christian (Catholic) church overlooked all the other relationships between other science research and other religions. And that these other relationships amounted to a significant number. I simply pointed out that they did not. Most of the science done in the world was under the eye of the Catholic Church.

Uh... what the heck is this sentence supposed to be saying?

You said

"It should be noted that scientists did exist during this time, and much of what they found was perfectly acceptable by the Church... as long as it didn't disagree with Church doctrine. Therefore, they didn't want to maintain a misunderstanding of the world deliberately like some kind of illuminati group trying to keep everyone dumb."
​

And I disagree that they (the Catholic Church) "didn't want to maintain a misunderstanding of the world deliberately like some kind of illuminati group trying to keep everyone dumb." The Catholic Church thought the proper understanding of the world was established by their interpretation of the scriptures etc., so there was no possibly that they might be misunderstanding. Now, although they didn't consider their understanding to be mistaken, that's what it amounted to; therefore, by permitting only science that conformed to their understandings they were forcing science to maintain, buttress, these misunderstandings. All of which is contrary to your claim that they didn't want to deliberately maintain a misunderstanding of the world. They deliberately did so by "cherry picking" the science they would allow. Hence my

"So scientific research that only conformed to the preconceptions of the church wouldn't help maintain its misunderstandings? Yeah, right."
​

The scientific research they permitted did, in fact, maintain the Church's misunderstanding.

 

[not nom]

You may think of Hitler, but you would know that he was a Christian.

no, I don't deal in false dichotomies, I was just thinking of the repetiveness and pointless generality of such threads. do you want to talk about statements by dawkins, or about how evil religion is etc.?

But if there are any atheists who are murderers at least they don’t do it in the name of a God.

... or another stated higher ideal? lol!! it doesn't really matter to me what excuses people use to murder. selfishness, or a group, or whatever authority they invoke. what I notice however is intellectual dishonesty or naivity, and THAT to me is surely a common factor of just any big murder movement you could pull up, yeah?

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.”

and that is just bull, demonstrably so. it doesn't take religion to make good people do evil things, what planet does that person live on? so he's a nobel laureate in physics, wonderful -- maybe I'd ask him about equations and whatnot, but when it comes to religion or politics, or human evil, I think there are better sources. it's just a pseudo-witty quip, and his "credentials", which are completely irrelevant, are supposed to make up for that? nah

I like hitchens for example, but he's also a stuck record... he constantly paraphrases that quote (without naming the source though ). less repetition, more thinking stuff over and through is too much to ask I guess... and all that for the added super bonus mega irony of fighting against religion and being quite the scientist...?! maybe it's some kind of elaborate joke.

 

[tarasan]

I like Dawkins, he is a good Scientist and has made understanding Evolution reachable to a layman like myself, he also writes in an entertaining manner (which is a HUGE plus)

I also think that he genuinely wants to help people and truely believes that when he degrades religious people on mass, he is doing a good thing however...

His arguments are awful, he has no understanding of Theology/Philosophy/critical thinking. Ultimately I believe that he has weakened the Atheist movement rather than strengthened it.

To me he is a smart guy, who relied on his success in one area to give him credit in another, but ultimately, now that he has been around for a while, people are starting to see how over his head he is. I just hope that popular athiesm can recover from the damage that he has unintentionally done.

 

[Storm]

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

"You touch it with a needle."

If Dawkins bothered to read the works of advanced theology, or even its history (like the aforementioned works of Armstrong), he'd have a deeper understanding than the dictionary, and would most likely have the proof he claims to desire.

But that wouldn't feed his agenda, so he doesn't. :sleep:

 

[idav]

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

That statement rings true for most religions I know of like 7 out of 10 at least.

 

[painted wolf]

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)

No argument here.

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)

totally 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 think Dawkins underestimates the skepticism that children possess.

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)

LoL... Dawkins must think God is very interesting then!

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

Makes a cute slogan.

wa:do

 

[Storm]

That statement rings true for most religions I know of like 7 out of 10 at least.

I think the distinction you miss is between religion x and religious institution x. There's a world of difference once you do the research.

 

[idav]

I think the distinction you miss is between religion x and religious institution x. There's a world of difference once you do the research.

I may have been thinking more of the churches if the religion has one. I know there are religions that encourage thinking but they are in the minority especially in comparison to some of the mega churches around the world.

 

[Storm]

I may have been thinking more of the churches if the religion has one. I know there are religions that encourage thinking but they are in the minority especially in comparison to some of the mega churches around the world.

Precisely. I hear "religion" and I think... well, religion! "Christianity" =/= "the Vatican." Know what I mean?

 

[Quintessence]

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.

Aspects of this are agreeable. The universe is indeed ordered and as a whole it is indeed indifferent to humanity (amoral/nonemotional). I also agree that certain beliefs trivialize the wonder inherent in the universe. I would contest everything within it having "an" explanation rather than explanations (plural) as well as the ability of humans to grasp said explanations and truths.


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.

Agreed, though I dislike language of "highest" and whatnot. It's a little too patronizing. It's statements like this that make Dawkins not an atheist in my book. He strikes me as an incredibly religious man at times. If you experience anything to have awe and wonder, you have experienced god/deity/sacred/magical. Whether or not you actually call it "god" is irrelevant; it's certainly "god" in my language of the term.

 

[idav]

Precisely. I hear "religion" and I think... well, religion! "Christianity" =/= "the Vatican." Know what I mean?

Yeah I can see that but I wouldn't even want to lump all christians as this or that, I would go by their denominations on whether they tend to encourage open-mindedness or not. What I'm talking about would be more so in the US than Europe but more so in Middle East than US.

 

[Storm]

Yeah I can see that but I wouldn't even want to lump all christians as this or that, I would go by their denominations on whether they tend to encourage open-mindedness or not. What I'm talking about would be more so in the US than Europe but more so in Middle East than US.

We agree thus far. Do you agree that Dawkins made that error in the provided quote?