Dawkins relies on ignorance

[bankside]

Believe it or not people of faith can and do question and analyze their beliefs, unlike scientific debate though such examination is a personal thing so they are not generally not publishing peer reviewed papers on the subject.

Why on earth would the existence of the creator of the universe be "a personal thing?"

 

[zoltanspawn]

Ken Ham made the same point extensively in his debate with Bill Nye: there are lots of intelligent scientists who believe in god.

How vague. How unsatisfying.

 

[Stardreamer]

One's connection to such a creator is a very personal thing. There is a reason why that connection is often expressed in parental metaphors.

 

[Stardreamer]

Ken Ham made the same point extensively in his debate with Bill Nye: there are lots of intelligent scientists who believe in god.

How vague. How unsatisfying.

And on the other paw, most of those intelligent scientists would side with Bill Nye than Ken Ham in that debate and still have no problem reconciling a belief in God.

 

[zoltanspawn]

And on the other paw, most of those intelligent scientists would side with Bill Nye than Ken Ham in that debate and still have no problem reconciling a belief in God.

So...what do these intelligent scientists' beliefs entail? Is it a mythic thing? A belief winnowed out by reason? A gut instinct? The result of experimentation? What does God mean to them? Pantheism? Panentheism? Supernaturalism? Polytheism? Tantrism? How do they read traditional religious texts? Literally? Figuratively? Anagogically? As meditation?

So on and so forth.

Saying that there are smart science-y theists is a dull assertion.

 

[Telstra]

He relies on the ignorance of most people about religion, even about their own. He can talk nonsense about religion -- which he does -- because most people are too ignorant to catch him at it.

BTW, your claim is ludicrous: there are dozens of books just by people who set out to prove religion wrong who instead turned to the religion they were trying to disprove. Are you actually claiming to have read all those-- plus the hundreds of books by people who began to doubt their faith but found that the evidence turned them back to it?

Looked = read ?
Jesus Christ LOL, i don't need to read books. I listened to people and judge for myself.

 

[mightbe]

There is even 'scientific' evidence that a belief in the divine may have certain mental and physical health benefits.

But one cannot jump to any conclusion from this--psychological value is not measured by validity.

That's one of Dawkins' straw men.

Though it's you that relies on cherry-picking to call yourself a Christian. You jump through startling arrays of hoops to avoid unsavory labels. It would almost seem that for you to call yourself a Christian, you had to set yourself apart from the organization that defined Christianity in the first place (and apparently all its offshoots).

I don't think that the Christian god would take kindly to being a Christian simply to not be anything else. The same iteration that brought "gentle Jesus meek and mild" also introduced the idea of eternal damnation and suffering (in quick succession, no less). Before you-know-who stole the show in the second act, there was no such arrangement (though some may call it transparency, this is CE&P, after all).

You simply died, or lingered in an uneventful afterlife. In the Old Testament, God's impulsive, vengeful and callous--but in the New, he codified his divine punishments. Instead of just intermittent severity, there is certainty of severity. No more "ambiguous disappearance into the afterlife"--the New Covenant guarantees inescapable consequences. Though outwardly friendly, God II has an enumerated volley of horror lined up for any misgiving. If such fastidious attention was given to enumerating the penalties, wouldn't God follow through on his "promises" with self-important and self-appointed arbiters?

 

[bort138]

Critics of religion, like Dawkins, focus on fundamentalists because they are typically the ones that cause the most harm to society. If all believers could learn to take a more liberal approach to their religion or not force their religious dogma into law, atheists and critics would not feel as strongly against religion as they do.

Unfortunately, in the real world, this not a realistic outcome. People act and vote based on their interpretation of their religious beliefs so the flawed methodology and irrational thinking that religion encourages needs to go. I wish everyone's irrational religious beliefs made them a good person but unfortunately it doesn't work out that way. Kuli, I'm sorry that people are too ignorant to interpret your religion the exact same way you do but your "correct" interpenetration is not as straightforward as you like to think it is. How do you think we ended up with over 30,000 denominations of Christianity alone?

 

[bankside]

BTW, your claim is ludicrous: there are dozens of books just by people who set out to prove religion wrong who instead turned to the religion they were trying to disprove. Are you actually claiming to have read all those-- plus the hundreds of books by people who began to doubt their faith but found that the evidence turned them back to it?

This shows your keen inquisitiveness toward the ideas of those who doubted faith but of course then came around to it.

 

[mightbe]

One's connection to such a creator is a very personal thing. There is a reason why that connection is often expressed in parental metaphors.

But an all-knowing sentient creator would surely take no interest in the vastly inferior individual life-forms he created. Do you think a god that designed the whole of the universe would take attendance? Of course not! That'd be ludicrous. He'd be about as interested in you as you are in the millions of bacteria swarming your mouth. If he is all-knowing and all-powerful, I can't imagine he'd be too interested in socializing. First of all, it'd be redundant. Second, it would be so vapid and low that I doubt he'd even want to listen. Your assumption rests on God having infinite intelligence (to create the universe) but relatively human intelligence (there'd be absolutely no point in him listening if that wasn't the case). You can't have both.

The reason it's expressed in parental metaphors is because humans are comforted by the notions of having eternal parents. Humans wrote the Bible, regardless of alleged divine inspiration.

It's a really nice feeling--having somebody looking out for you, someone to hold you and make it better. Everyone wants that. It has nothing to do with God's relative position to you. You'd be next-to-worthless. The Abrahamic religions try to bypass this by asserting that we are all God's children. Well, when you've had many trillions upon trillions of children (all life-forms), it'd be really hard to care about each and every one, especially given the increasing number of dead ones.

 

[mightbe]

Kuli, I'm sorry that people are too ignorant to interpret your religion the exact same way you do but your "correct" interpenetration is not as straightforward as you like to think it is. How do you think we ended up with over 30,000 denominations of Christianity alone?

I'm not sure if you're being apologistic or acrimonious. I can't fathom why you'd be apologizing, but it doesn't read like sarcasm.

There's nothing straightforward about religion or its interpretation; no two individuals will process the information in the same way. That we have organized religion is a side-effect of needing to fit in. Community-over-theology for the vast majority of people.

People (I'd go so far as to say species) would rather assemble than agree, though if they assemble sooner or later they'll start agreeing. You can extrapolate that to genetics if you so desire.

 

[Rolyo85]

Critics of religion, like Dawkins, focus on fundamentalists because they are typically the ones that cause the most harm to society. If all believers could learn to take a more liberal approach to their religion or not force their religious dogma into law, atheists and critics would not feel as strongly against religion as they do.

Unfortunately, in the real world, this not a realistic outcome. People act and vote based on their interpretation of their religious beliefs so the flawed methodology and irrational thinking that religion encourages needs to go. I wish everyone's irrational religious beliefs made them a good person but unfortunately it doesn't work out that way. Kuli, I'm sorry that people are too ignorant to interpret your religion the exact same way you do but your "correct" interpenetration is not as straightforward as you like to think it is. How do you think we ended up with over 30,000 denominations of Christianity alone?

This is the core of the issue. For the MAJORITY of people of faith in America, their faith is literal. Those who take a more abstract approach would be viewed by that majority as CINOs, and ultimately, I find waving them around as the "enlightened" Christians that Dawkins unfairly ignores, to be disingenuous, if for no other reason, than because in order to be one of them, you HAVE to accept that the Bible (or any other religious text that isn't pure philosophy) is factually wrong. The Earth was NOT created 6,000 years ago, nor was it created in 6 days, there was NO Noah's Arc, etc.

So yes, I believe the scientific bashing of religion SHOULD focus on literalists, as they ARE the ones that harm and impede progress.

 

[Rolyo85]

But an all-knowing sentient creator would surely take no interest in the vastly inferior individual life-forms he created. Do you think a god that designed the whole of the universe would take attendance? Of course not! That'd be ludicrous. He'd be about as interested in you as you are in the millions of bacteria swarming your mouth. If he is all-knowing and all-powerful, I can't imagine he'd be too interested in socializing. First of all, it'd be redundant. Second, it would be so vapid and low that I doubt he'd even want to listen. Your assumption rests on God having infinite intelligence (to create the universe) but relatively human intelligence (there'd be absolutely no point in him listening if that wasn't the case). You can't have both.

This has always been my argument against the whole "God hates gay marriage" thing... I mean, come on. Do you seriously not see how your claim that the all-knowing all-powerful Creator of the universe is so petty as to care where I put my dick, to be a total insult to your own faith?

 

[andysayshi]

I reject the premise that Dawkins relies on ignorance. I found the article rather patronising and illogical in places.

Dawkins has clearly stated for years that he is happy to reshape his opinion of anything in science, religion or life if he is presented with evidence of it. Unless you can provide evidence of an almighty being guiding my life, I agree with Dawkins.

Dawkins has also stated for years that he doesn't care if people believe in religion, so long as they don't use that belief in any way that negatively affects others. I don't care if Kulindahr believes in God, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But if he gets a job at the local school and starts teaching kids in science class that the world might be 6000 years old, I have a lot to say about that.

Science is the theorising of a possibility which is then measured, tested and proven or disproven. Sometimes a proven fact is disproven, and science accepts the new proof.

Religion is a theorised possibility that CANNOT be proven, but is believed anyway. Some theists adapt their views as science proves the religion wrong, like Catholicism accepting evolution, but that's not a ringing endorsement for religion: "we believe our unproven theories until science gradually disproves them." That's the total absence of evidence, which one might define as ignorance. Dawkins is the ENEMY of that ignorance because he seeks evidence.

Using theist scientists as a justification of the argument is ridiculous. Religion is a powerful influence, usually deeply imprinted in us when we're young depending on our upbringing. Just because an intelligent, educated scientist holds onto that belief in adulthood does not make it any more real, logical or provable. It is evidence of nothing, except the power of imprinting beliefs onto the young. Some scientists theorise that belief in a greater being might be coded into our base level consciousness, a relic of our genetic past. We know that there is a certain part of the brain that, when stimulated, gives the person a sense of having out-of body heaven-like experiences. Some recipients have claimed to talk to God as part of that process. Perhaps some brains are simply more susceptible to "faith" than others.

 

[EastMed]

And on the other paw, most of those intelligent scientists would side with Bill Nye than Ken Ham in that debate and still have no problem reconciling a belief in God.

I would hazard a guess that a majority of scientists have little interest in religion and its relevance to their research.
Bernard Williams once remarked that questions about God are interesting only if you happen to believe in God. If God exists then these questions are of cosmic importance, but if he doesn’t, they are not about anything. In which case the questions become anthropological: furnishing a description of why human beings believe in God in the first place.

 

[bankside]

Religion is a theorised possibility that CANNOT be proven, but is believed anyway.

I disagree with this. I find it very interesting that miracles do not occur on video recordings. There is nothing to say religious assertions are beyond proof, except for the religious people who say that anything divine leaves no trace on the physical world that can be recorded, measured or extrapolated whenever that divinity interacts with the material observable universe.

 

[TX-Beau]

I disagree with this. I find it very interesting that miracles do not occur on video recordings. There is nothing to say religious assertions are beyond proof, except for the religious people who say that anything divine leaves no trace on the physical world that can be recorded, measured or extrapolated whenever that divinity interacts with the material observable universe.

Which is where your Divinity that can't be traced is irrelevant anyway argument n'est pas?

I tend to agree. If a divinity is acting in a REAL way on the faithful (and of course the unfaithful) there has to be a way to measure that. I vote we make a bunch of Christians turn some water into a nice Cabernet (no using grapes, that's cheating) and document the process.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ken Ham made the same point extensively in his debate with Bill Nye: there are lots of intelligent scientists who believe in god.

How vague. How unsatisfying.

But don't forget that Stephen J. Gould made the same point, and in effect told scientists to grow up and stop dissing obviously intelligent people for their convictions.

 

[TX-Beau]

Od course the PHILOSOPHICAL proposition of god is certainly not falsifiable and therefore useless to science in any way.

 

[Kulindahr]

And on the other paw, most of those intelligent scientists would side with Bill Nye than Ken Ham in that debate and still have no problem reconciling a belief in God.

Exactly! And that's what Dawkins depends on: that most people are ignorant of this, so he can keep maintaining that religion is the enemy of science. Most Catholics I know find Dawkins sadly amusing for this very reason.