Richard Dawkins

underclass

I wonder how many people will be quoting from Dawkins' bestsellers in 2000 years' time...

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

I don't find it in the least bit suprising, I find it a rather circular patter though. Did God/belief in God influence the people who then reflect that back on to God? Chicken and egg tbh. They seem to be arguing that people who believe in God already, put their opinions onto God as a sort of reinforcement of their own beliefs. Surely it's obvious that as they already believe in God their own beliefs would already mirror God's opinions. Tried to explain that better but that was the best I could do.

I think you missed the point a bit. Firstly, as an aside what this and other research shows is that there doesn't appear to be a "god centre" of the brain but, anyway, what they did was:


Ask people about their own opinion on something. Area X of the brain lit up
Ask people what they think another person's (e.g. Barack Obama) opinion would be. Area Y of the brain lit up.

This indicates that we use different areas of the brain for determining our own opinions and inferring what those of others would be.


Then they asked people what they think god's opinion would be. God is "another person" so in theory area Y should light up but area X, the area used for determining our own opinions lit up. Hence the title "Dear god, please confirm what I already believe"

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

No, it's not. Dawkins did not say 'religion instructs people to be satisfied with not understanding God'.. he said it instructs people to be satisfied with not understanding the world

Groan

It is a figure of speech (you know, like the bits of the Bible that get things wrong)

He doesn't mean the literal round object circling the Sun. He doesn't mean everything there is. He doesn't mean you never go to a doctor, or ask a teacher a question.

He means not understand things, in general, about the world around us because we become satisfied with the answers religion gives us, answers we can't verify. Or in other words, Faith.

By Dawkins beard, if he knew he would have to talk like a legal contract every time he opens mouth I imagine Dawkins would move to a desert island.

And people call him arrogant, if this is the sort of nonsense he has to put up with I don't blame him.

Zombrex

underclass wrote: »

I wonder how many people will be quoting from Dawkins' bestsellers in 2000 years' time...

I suppose it depends on how empires have leaders who convert to Dawkinism.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan
It is a figure of speech (you know, like the bits of the Bible that get things wrong)..

Rather careless for a man who makes his name this way.

Wicknight wrote: »

He means not understand things, in general, about the world around us because we become satisfied with the answers religion gives us, answers we can't verify. Or in other words, Faith..

So, what in general, about the world around us does religion tell us not to even try to understand? Any examples?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan

It is a figure of speech (you know, like the bits of the Bible that get things wrong)

He doesn't mean the literal round object circling the Sun. He doesn't mean everything there is. He doesn't mean you never go to a doctor, or ask a teacher a question.

He means not understand things, in general, about the world around us because we become satisfied with the answers religion gives us, answers we can't verify. Or in other words, Faith.

By Dawkins beard, if he knew he would have to talk like a legal contract every time he opens mouth I imagine Dawkins would move to a desert island.

You are spectacularly missing the point.

Prinz was not artificially limiting Dawkins' terminology, but you are artificially broadening Prinz's terminology.

Prinz has pointed out that having faith in God does not prevent one from exploring one's curiosity about everything else. This holds true however one interprets Dawkins' use of the word 'world'.

And people call him arrogant, if this is the sort of nonsense he has to put up with I don't blame him.

At this moment I sympathise with anyone who has to put up with nonsense.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you missed the point a bit. Firstly, as an aside what this and other research shows is that there doesn't appear to be a "god centre" of the brain but, anyway, what they did was:


Ask people about their own opinion on something. Area X of the brain lit up
Ask people what they think another person's (e.g. Barack Obama) opinion would be. Area Y of the brain lit up.

This indicates that we use different areas of the brain for determining our own opinions and inferring what those of others would be.


Then they asked people what they think god's opinion would be. God is "another person" so in theory area Y should light up but area X, the area used for determining our own opinions lit up. Hence the title "Dear god, please confirm what I already believe"

Pfftt . That proves God's imaginary status as much as area Y lighting up would prove His existence. Come one Sam, something a bit more substantive please.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Pfftt . That proves God's imaginary status as much as area Y lighting up would prove His existence. Come one Sam, something a bit more substantive please.

No one said it was proof that god doesn't exist, I said it was evidence that when people are trying to infer "what would Jesus do?", the evidence suggests that they're actually thinking "what would I do?"

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No one said it was proof that god doesn't exist, I said it was evidence that when people are trying to infer "what would Jesus do?", the evidence suggests that they're actually thinking "what would I do?"

Well He (Jesus) did pray to the Father to make His followers one with Him as He and the Father are one (John 17:21). Maybe that would explain things.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well He (Jesus) did pray to the Father to make His followers one with Him as He and the Father are one (John 17:21). Maybe that would explain things.

Ummmm, probably not. One would think that if someone was asking "what would Jesus do?" and the conclusion they came to was actually god's opinion because they were using a function of their brain designed by god to make us one with him, then there wouldn't have been so many horrific acts carried out by people who thought it was god's will. One would also think that such opinions would always be the same since they're apparently all the opinion of the one god but that is also clearly not the case.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No one said it was proof that god doesn't exist, I said it was evidence that when people are trying to infer "what would Jesus do?", the evidence suggests that they're actually thinking "what would I do?"

Not always. I can think of may scenarios that doing the right thing by God is the wrong thing for you.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ummmm, probably not. One would think that if someone was asking "what would Jesus do?" and the conclusion they came to was actually god's opinion because they were using a function of their brain designed by god to make us one with him, then there wouldn't have been so many horrific acts carried out by people who thought it was god's will. One would also think that such opinions would always be the same since they're apparently all the opinion of the one god but that is also clearly not the case.

I would hardly think that anyone who would commit any kind of horrific act would be acting in accordance with Jesus' admonitions outlined all through the New Testament texts. So with that being the case they are hardly analogous typical of real followers of Christ who are filled with His Spirit are they? Anyone who commits acts which are contrary to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament are not doing God's will no matter how much they have convinced themselves that they are.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not always. I can think of may scenarios that doing the right thing by God is the wrong thing for you.

Doing the right thing by god is, in theory, always the right thing for you but I'm sure there are exceptions. Having said that, it's not necessarily about doing whatever most benefits you regardless of how selfish it is, I think I was a bit unclear about that. What you think Barack Obama would do is based on your understanding of the personality of Barack Obama but what you think Jesus would do is based on your own understanding of what you think is good. So what you're actually doing at a neurological level is taking your own opinion of what you already think is right and giving it a theistic endorsement.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Prinz has pointed out that having faith in God does not prevent one from exploring one's curiosity about everything else.

Yes but that is irrelevant given the vast array of things that are covered by faith in God.

Like I said already Dawkins is not implying that a religious says to a person answers every question in Trivial Pursuit with "Umm, God?"

That is a silly straw man to attack Dawkins.

While railing against Dawkins none of you are saying you don't actually do what he is talking about, only a straw man extreme literal interpretation.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

I would hardly think that anyone who would commit any kind of horrific act would be acting in accordance with Jesus' admonitions outlined all through the New Testament texts. So with that being the case they are hardly analogous typical of real followers of Christ who are filled with His Spirit are they? Anyone who commits acts which are contrary to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament are not doing God's will no matter how much they have convinced themselves that they are.

Exactly my point. They were not doing god's will but a great many of them thought they were so it's highly unlikely that this phenomenon is due to a direct line to god's will right there in our brains. Most likely it's what the scientists said it is

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

So, what in general, about the world around us does religion tell us not to even try to understand? Any examples?

Examples for your straw man that isn't what Dawkins said .. nope, can't think of any of the top of my head.

I've already given you examples of what Dawkins is talking about, for example faith in an explanation of something that is not understood or verified, which you happily admit to doing.

antiskeptic

underclass wrote: »

I wonder how many people will be quoting from Dawkins' bestsellers in 2000 years' time...

None, in all probability.

Dawkins would see himself and his efforts as a random mutation. And would have no objection were it that he and his lifes work were not 'selected' for retention

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

It doesn't. Which was my point.

Are you going to misinterpret me in this thread too ? :rolleyes:

what do you mean by "too" where else do you claim I have misrepresented you?

the russels teapot idea stemmed from a discussion about dawkings. i was only pointing out the "type distinction" problem. If you use the word "teapot" for the word "god" maybe the idea might come across.

It depends on what their education is in. I'm pretty sure there are many educated people with a religion right here on this forum who would say "God created the Universe".

and they might also say "I don't know how the Universe started, I don't even know if it had a beginning". That is nhot inconsistent with "God created it" if you can believe in a n infintinatley old unioverse. and other Christians might believe god had a hand in it but they don't know hoew it started all they can do is explain what happened 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds later.

And the list you just gave suggest that the Universe just popped into existence ? Are you trying to equate "The Big Bang theory" with "popped into existence" ?

Indeed. the Big bang asserts that space-time had a finite beginning. THe universe began at time zero and "popped into existence" at that time

PDN

I'm finding this thread really interesting as an example of how the more fundamentalist atheists behave as a religion, and "The God Delusion" seems to be winning the race to become their inerrant text.

Instead of just admitting that Dickie got it wrong, we are seeing reinterpretations of the holy text that are strongly reminiscient of the 'apologetics' videos that spotty Christian teenagers put up on Youtube where they mangle sound exegesis and hermeneutics in order to explain away a difficulty in the Bible.

So, any reference to the believers' brains misfunctioning is actually "a humorous way of saying someone has made a mistake".

Now, we are told that a blanket statement that "religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world" doesn't actually mean that at all. What it really means is that in at least one area (such as the way of salvation, or the existence of God, or whether a miracle occurred) some religions teach people that one explanation is more truthful than others.

I would have thought it would have been easier to simply say, "OK, Dawkins made a bit of a boo-boo there!" - but I've got to give his disciples ten out of ten for effort.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Can you give me an example of something he said that you deemed unacceptable, why you deemed it unacceptable and what you feel he should have said instead?

I dislike his pejorative language. For instance, his use of the word "faith-heads" to describe believers. In itself it's not a bad insult, rather it is symptomatic of his approach to the debate. Like a recent poster, I seem to think that Dawkins prefers at times to embarrass and ridicule his opponents. In doing so he seems to be playing up to the expectations of certain members of his audience. Rabble rousing, in other words.

lmaopml

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I dislike his pejorative language. For instance, his use of the word "faith-heads" to describe believers. In itself it's not a bad insult, rather it is symptomatic of his approach to the debate. Like a recent poster, I seem to think that Dawkins prefers at times to embarrass and ridicule his opponents. In doing so he seems to be playing up to the expectations of certain members of his audience. Rabble rousing, in other words.

I would say that Dawkins is an excellent Scientist. I was dissappointed with his approach to writing this book; I think somebody mentioned some previous atheist authors who had some etiquette about themselves, and a far greater understanding of philosophy..

I understand he wrote it because he felt he had to 'do' something about 9/11 and it contained a lot ( too much ) of 'himself' in it to be honest...I felt he let himself down and I would imagine more than a few scientists blushed for him...but I do understand the angst that drove it....

I often wonder is he sorry that he appeals so much to the hoi pollio...I see he shut down his own discussion forum because of the way somebody described him on it, one of his fans - something about excrement.......and I just thought.....karma....

My nephew quoted him to my gran at one stage and she has such a simple faith....and the guy is seriously smart but young....I just thought, it's that book again *rolls eyes* It seems to have given 'permission' to be a plonker to people who never would have become one...

However, he is a great scientist and his logic is flawless.... he doesn't seem to understand that it's application is best served where it is pertinent....Apples and Oranges...

A Primal Nut

antiskeptic wrote: »

I gather it's not just religious readers that find him abit of a buffoon.





I agree. The "Faith .. the evidence of things not seen" thread outlines the biblical view of faith and we see the kind of trouble atheists get into when they begin to supposing what God can and cannot do. Dawkins view of faith, in contrast, supposes it blind - when what he really means is that it isn't empirically measurable > therefore it is empirically evidential-less > therefore it is empirically blind.

It is not empirically blind and he never says this. It is empirically measurable as false as there is plenty of evidence that the idea of a theistic god can't exist, mainly that it breaks every law of physics/chemistry/biology known to man.

Its a shame everyone chooses to judge him based on the God Delusion. He has written other books you know. The Selfish Gene is amazing and contains loads of his own ideas that have now become accepted.

I never read the God Delusion, so I don't know if he comes across as arrogant or not, but certainly he doesn't in other books. Perhaps it is a bad book (I don't know) but all the other books he has written that I have read more than make up for it.

Fanny Cradock

lmaopml wrote: »

his logic is flawless...

Not sure about this. Certainly people better than I have accused him of having faulty/ selective logic.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

I'm finding this thread really interesting as an example of how the more fundamentalist atheists behave as a religion, and "The God Delusion" seems to be winning the race to become their inerrant text.

Instead of just admitting that Dickie got it wrong, we are seeing reinterpretations of the holy text that are strongly reminiscient of the 'apologetics' videos that spotty Christian teenagers put up on Youtube where they mangle sound exegesis and hermeneutics in order to explain away a difficulty in the Bible.

So, any reference to the believers' brains misfunctioning is actually "a humorous way of saying someone has made a mistake".

Now, we are told that a blanket statement that "religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world" doesn't actually mean that at all. What it really means is that in at least one area (such as the way of salvation, or the existence of God, or whether a miracle occurred) some religions teach people that one explanation is more truthful than others.

I would have thought it would have been easier to simply say, "OK, Dawkins made a bit of a boo-boo there!" - but I've got to give his disciples ten out of ten for effort.

And I find it hilarious that after all those times when you called people, for example, buffoons for not taking what you call "reasonable" interpretations of the bible you are here arguing that Dawkins must have said this absolutely ridiculous thing that even the most dim witted...buffoon.. would recognise as being false because if you take a more "reasonable" (i.e. not totally absurd) interpretation you don't get to call him "a foolish, dogmatic, or dishonest person" or call those who tell you you're erecting straw men fundamentalists. If you want to show me something where Dawkins is wrong and not just straw man wrong I will be more than happy to acknowledge it. For example (first thing that popped into my head), while I highly enjoy the video where he responds to the question "what if you're wrong?" with, in short, "what if you're wrong about the great Ju Ju under the sea?" I think he would have been better off actually addressing the question rather than pointing out that he could ask the same question of her.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I dislike his pejorative language. For instance, his use of the word "faith-heads" to describe believers. In itself it's not a bad insult, rather it is symptomatic of his approach to the debate. Like a recent poster, I seem to think that Dawkins prefers at times to embarrass and ridicule his opponents. In doing so he seems to be playing up to the expectations of certain members of his audience. Rabble rousing, in other words.

That's something I'll give you. While I think it is important to know religion off its pedestal and make people realise that is actually is ok to criticise it, things like that in a public forum have a tendency to make people switch off from what you're saying whether you're right or not

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

For example, while I highly enjoy the video where he responds to the question "what if you're wrong?" with, in short, "what if you're wrong about the great Ju Ju under the sea?" I think he would have been better off actually addressing the question rather than pointing out that he could ask the same question of her.

I hated that, because in a period of almost two hours of interesting discussion and answering of questions, Dawkins provided some brilliant answers to pertinent questions about philosophy and science. Yet like Blaise Pascal most people only seem to know about that "ju ju" crap where Dawkins had lost his patience. It was the third question from that lady, who quite obviously, was, if it were an internet forum, what the internet would refer to as either very dense or a troll.


Full Q&A here.
Well worth it if you want to form an opinion on Dawkins. Instead of basing it on bloody quote mines.

equivariant

underclass wrote: »

I wonder how many people will be quoting from Dawkins' bestsellers in 2000 years' time...

Probably about the same number as will be quoting from the bible, which is about the same number of people people as currently believe that the pharaohs were really gods, or that currently believe that Zeus lives on Mount Olympus. 2000 years is a long time, and the next 2000 years will be a lot longer than the last 2000 years in terms of the advancement of our understanding of the universe and of our own psychology.

antiskeptic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not sure about this. Certainly people better than I have accused him of having faulty/ selective logic.

Given the subject matter of The God Delusion, this;

Dawkins... theologically illiterate

..is a most accurate and damning indictment.


Great article FC!

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Like a recent poster, I seem to think that Dawkins prefers at times to embarrass and ridicule his opponents.

He's only able to embarrass opponents because of the ridiculousness of their positions to be honest. He is quite a gentleman, and I've seen debates when he simply reads from scripture and is accused of "stridency".

A point I've noticed from this thread: how is someone supposed to "respect" a position when they think is absolutely mad? Would you respect someone who thought they had been probed by pink aliens? And teach their alternative view in schools? I'm just wondering how people think we should respect views we find ridiculous.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

what do you mean by "too" where else do you claim I have misrepresented you?

Not gonna argue it here but, North Korea = religious state.

and they might also say "I don't know how the Universe started, I don't even know if it had a beginning". That is nhot inconsistent with "God created it" if you can believe in a n infintinatley old unioverse. and other Christians might believe god had a hand in it but they don't know hoew it started all they can do is explain what happened 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds later.

Yes they might. I don't think we're in disagreement are we ?

Indeed. the Big bang asserts that space-time had a finite beginning. THe universe began at time zero and "popped into existence" at that time

Time popped into existence "at that time". So what was 'before' time started ?