Dawkins relies on ignorance

[Kulindahr]

Though it's you that relies on cherry-picking to call yourself a Christian.

Not in the least.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

No one needs to take a "liberal approach to their religion" -- I certainly don't, because that phrase generally means to water things down and don't take them seriously, especially throwing out the parts that make one uncomfortable. That's just sheer dishonesty.

The civic problem here is that Dawkins acts exactly like a fundamentalist, except he's a fundamentalist atheist. He's bought into the false dichotomy of either reading everything literally or reading it all figuratively. For someone who's a sort of scholar, that's astoundingly asinine -- he should realize that one has to take things for what they are intended to be, not just throw it all into a singular heap. He certainly wouldn't treat a variety of sets of data on matters biological in the same way!

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?

We ended up with so many denominations because people are inclined to latch onto one thing and run with it, forcing everything else to fit that, and because of the pernicious notion that the Bible as it appears in English is a "personal message" to each believer. That radical notion is actually a rejection of divine revelation, a repetition of the original sin that puts self ahead of God.

 

[bankside]

For someone who's a sort of scholar, that's astoundingly asinine -- he should realize that one has to take things for what they are intended to be, not just throw it all into a singular heap. He certainly wouldn't treat a variety of sets of data on matters biological in the same way!

Anyone who is any kind of scholar should consider the possibility that something is not at all what it appears to be. Dawkins has examined the claims of divinity that the bible would purport to sustain about itself, and the possibility that it is not so at all. To conclude that the book is not really divine is only to find, in a scholarly way, that the divine hypothesis is unlikely.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

If He wasn't going to be interested in the individuals whom He endowed with intelligence, why would He have done so? If all He was interested in was a vast plaything to poke around in, bestowing intelligence on tiny portions of it would be pointless.

And why would He not be "interested in socializing"? Far from being "redundant", it would be novel: entities other than Himself would be generating independent thought! Indeed, I can see no other reason for which He would be interested in creating a universe -- if it were just some vast collection of inanimate matter, of what interest would it be? Nothing new or different would come of it. But throw in intelligence, and now there's a point to Creation: it will bring forth little images of Himself, who will have their own thoughts, however limited. And that is what would make Him interested in listening -- intelligences other than His own would be generating new thoughts.

 

[mightbe]

If He wasn't going to be interested in the individuals whom He endowed with intelligence, why would He have done so? If all He was interested in was a vast plaything to poke around in, bestowing intelligence on tiny portions of it would be pointless.

And why would He not be "interested in socializing"? Far from being "redundant", it would be novel: entities other than Himself would be generating independent thought! Indeed, I can see no other reason for which He would be interested in creating a universe -- if it were just some vast collection of inanimate matter, of what interest would it be? Nothing new or different would come of it. But throw in intelligence, and now there's a point to Creation: it will bring forth little images of Himself, who will have their own thoughts, however limited. And that is what would make Him interested in listening -- intelligences other than His own would be generating new thoughts.

Something tells me that you got way more out of an ant farm than you should've. His handiwork is so mentally and physically handicapped as be relatively dysfunctional. Our efforts wouldn't elicit any bemusement or surprise--we would be so vastly inferior as to be easily dismissible. It's quite arrogant to think that God is standing over your shoulder and is impressed.

Gabriel says to God, "Oh they're eating belligerent tribes again!" "You wouldn't believe what they're fucking now!" "My word, they're mutilating themselves!" and God says, "Figures." To think that he'd even be slightly appreciative of our attempts to emulate intelligence is giving far too much credit to us and far too little to him.

What makes prayer redundant is God's omniscience--it doesn't matter if you take time out of your day to communicate, he already got the memo. And since he would already know, it doesn't take long for one to assume that God knew what would happen before it did, making it doubly redundant. And sending a prophet every couple hundred years doesn't really make for great correspondence.

 

[bankside]

If there were an all-knowing deity, it would have no choice but to be aware of our every action. Taking attendance would be an inherent property of being all-knowing.

Of course for the same reason socializing would be redundant; there is nothing extra that can be gleaned by socializing for a being that is already omniscient. Not even "the effects on a sentient being of socializing with god" would be a novelty to an omniscient being who could have extrapolated them perfectly in the first place.

Moreover, there is no reason to imbue anything with intelligence, nor withhold it, when one is omniscient. There is no possible application of free will that would be novel to an omniscient being: all possibilities are understood simultaneously with equal alacrity.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

The majority of Christians are NOT literalists. Add up the Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Orthodox, and Lutherans, and those alone outnumber the literalists. Literalists make up less than a third of the Christians in the U.S., and less than that in the rest of the world.

But yes, the literalists are the dangerous ones, because they depend on ignorance. The problem is that Dawkins, too, is relying on ignorance, which makes him dangerous as well -- any factor or force in society that requires ignorance to succeed is a danger.

And to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old is ignorance on two levels. The obvious one is scientific, but the other is the Bible -- because the Bible makes no such claim. Such a number can be arrived at only by forcing the Bible into a mold not of its making.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

You're buying into Dawkins' reliance on ignorance here, because you're relying on it. Science never "prove[d] religion wrong". Evolution was never contrary to Catholicism, or to the Bible.

Your whole position here is a beautiful illustration of the ignorance Dawkins requires.

 

[bankside]

And to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old is ignorance on two levels. The obvious one is scientific, but the other is the Bible -- because the Bible makes no such claim. Such a number can be arrived at only by forcing the Bible into a mold not of its making.

To believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old but created by any god is equally ignorant. The number of years is not material to Dawkins' objections.

 

[TX-Beau]

If there were an all-knowing deity, it would have no choice but to be aware of our every action. Taking attendance would be an inherent property of being all-knowing.

Of course for the same reason socializing would be redundant; there is nothing extra that can be gleaned by socializing for a being that is already omniscient. Not even "the effects on a sentient being of socializing with god" would be a novelty to an omniscient being who could have extrapolated them perfectly in the first place.

Moreover, there is no reason to imbue anything with intelligence, nor withhold it, when one is omniscient. There is no possible application of free will that would be novel to an omniscient being: all possibilities are understood simultaneously with equal alacrity.

Omniscience also negates the concept of free will since a being that created you in your context created you in such a way, in such a place as to guarantee every choice you will ever make, you were made to sin exactly as you have sinned, by a deity that knew in advance exactly how you would fail it. It would have predetermined every choice you will ever make. In order for there to be choice, there must be freedom from that.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Another example of ignorance. You apparently aren't aware of the numbers of scientists who became scientists precisely because of their faith, or the ones who came to faith because of science. This tidy little mantra is comforting to many, but it is in actuality false.

 

[bankside]

Omniscience also negates the concept of free will since a being that created you in your context created you in such a way, in such a place as to guarantee every choice you will ever make, you were made to sin exactly as you have sinned, by a deity that knew in advance exactly how you would fail it. It would have predetermined every choice you will ever make. In order for there to be choice, there must be freedom from that.

Let me think about that for a minute...

 

[TX-Beau]

The majority of Christians are NOT literalists. Add up the Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Orthodox, and Lutherans, and those alone outnumber the literalists. Literalists make up less than a third of the Christians in the U.S., and less than that in the rest of the world.

But yes, the literalists are the dangerous ones, because they depend on ignorance. The problem is that Dawkins, too, is relying on ignorance, which makes him dangerous as well -- any factor or force in society that requires ignorance to succeed is a danger.

And to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old is ignorance on two levels. The obvious one is scientific, but the other is the Bible -- because the Bible makes no such claim. Such a number can be arrived at only by forcing the Bible into a mold not of its making.

Any Christian who believes in a factual God, is a literalist on that point, the only place that says a Christian God exists is in Christian literature - that Christians accept as fact concerning God. So why is it that Genesis is myth or metaphor, but God isn't. And if God is metaphor, what is the point of your religion?

 

[Kulindahr]

I would hazard a guess that a majority of scientists have little interest in religion and its relevance to their research.

Gould and Collins both give a figure of about two-fifths of scientists believing in a God who takes a personal interest in their lives. I think Collins means just the US, but Gould seemed to mean the world -- unfortunately, they weren't specific enough to be certain.

 

[bankside]

Another example of ignorance. You apparently aren't aware of the numbers of scientists who became scientists precisely because of their faith, or the ones who came to faith because of science. This tidy little mantra is comforting to many, but it is in actuality false.

We can't infer the existence of a god by counting the number of scientists who espouse a position of faith, as though we were counting decaying particles to infer the presence of a neutrino.

 

[mightbe]

To reiterate: We would almost surely be nothing to him. Given the probability of other intelligent beings in the universe, I doubt we're his greatest masterpiece. Take a look at history (not just humanity, but all terrestrial life) and it's fairly apparent that "intelligent" design was not at play. Nothing extraordinary here. Created or not, I doubt he in his divine capacities would give two shits towards our pathetic little species on a pathetic little planet in a pathetic solar system around a pathetic star in a pathetic corner of a pathetic universe. It's rather conceited to assume otherwise.

Free will is such a farce anyway in a universe where there's an omnipotent creator. One cannot imbue free will--it negates itself. Further, as a human I MUST believe in free will. If god must implant it then it cannot be free will. An omniscient being will have already planned out the entire course of your existence. He will know any possible future with equal clarity. It is inescapable.

 

[bankside]

Gould and Collins both give a figure of about two-fifths of scientists believing in a God who takes a personal interest in their lives. I think Collins means just the US, but Gould seemed to mean the world -- unfortunately, they weren't specific enough to be certain.

What neither Gould nor Collins bother to explain is why those two-fifths should be uninterested in reconciling their views with the other three-fifths. That demands an answer.

 

[Kulindahr]

Anyone who is any kind of scholar should consider the possibility that something is not at all what it appears to be. Dawkins has examined the claims of divinity that the bible would purport to sustain about itself, and the possibility that it is not so at all. To conclude that the book is not really divine is only to find, in a scholarly way, that the divine hypothesis is unlikely.

From his conversations available on YouTube, he most certainly has not. It's plain he doesn't even have a clue about the different varieties of literary types in the collection, which is an absolute prerequisite to examining its claims.

At best, Dawkins has approached the text as another literalist, the only difference being that he wants to find science. Since he doesn't, he jumps to the position that it's fairy tales.

 

[Kulindahr]

Something tells me that you got way more out of an ant farm than you should've. His handiwork is so mentally and physically handicapped as be relatively dysfunctional. Our efforts wouldn't elicit any bemusement or surprise--we would be so vastly inferior as to be easily dismissible. It's quite arrogant to think that God is standing over your shoulder and is impressed.

Gabriel says to God, "Oh they're eating belligerent tribes again!" "You wouldn't believe what they're fucking now!" "My word, they're mutilating themselves!" and God says, "Figures." To think that he'd even be slightly appreciative of our attempts to emulate intelligence is giving far too much credit to us and far too little to him.

What makes prayer redundant is God's omniscience--it doesn't matter if you take time out of your day to communicate, he already got the memo. And since he would already know, it doesn't take long for one to assume that God knew what would happen before it did, making it doubly redundant. And sending a prophet every couple hundred years doesn't really make for great correspondence.

This is a sufficient response to that:

If there were an all-knowing deity, it would have no choice but to be aware of our every action. Taking attendance would be an inherent property of being all-knowing.

Creating intelligence thus means the Creator intends to pay attention to it.

Of course for the same reason socializing would be redundant; there is nothing extra that can be gleaned by socializing for a being that is already omniscient. Not even "the effects on a sentient being of socializing with god" would be a novelty to an omniscient being who could have extrapolated them perfectly in the first place.

Moreover, there is no reason to imbue anything with intelligence, nor withhold it, when one is omniscient. There is no possible application of free will that would be novel to an omniscient being: all possibilities are understood simultaneously with equal alacrity.

This only holds if you view omniscience as an utterly impersonal program akin to assembling a data-base. A deity Who is a Person would of course find the results of the free will of created persons of interest, simultaneously understood or not.

 

[Kulindahr]

To believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old but created by any god is equally ignorant. The number of years is not material to Dawkins' objections.

Not so. If people with religious faith have no problem with a roughly 14 billion year-old universe, then most of his steam is gone. He relies on the young earth idiots to fuel his fire -- only that sort of foolishness makes religion look unreasonable. He has no footing at all when believers understand that the God who speaks in (verbal) revelation is the same one as speaking in the universe.

Personally, I don't think he even grasps that possibility. He certainly avoids it, and his case crumbles if people are aware of it.