Is Dawkins the answer?

Peppermint

I watched the second part of Richard Dawkins program yesterday evening -The Root of all Evil?- I really have enjoyed this program and have found Dawkins to come across as genuine and humane. The problem I have with the program is that I do not want to believe his point of view, but I am feeling more and more drawn towards it. The point I notice most about his stance is that he feels religion and science just cannot sit side by side, you have to believe one or the other.

My question : Is Dawkins just another fundamentalist, one in a white overall opposed to a white collar (or blue/brown polyester suite in JW world). I know to the Christian community he is perceived as the anti-Christ, so maybe this is what drives him. The program did not contain a lot of meat so I want to read more, it really is a subject I have chosen not to explore until now.

Is Dawkins the only place to go with this, or are there other Evolutionists out there who give an easier to swallow outline of evolution, for an ex-jw who’s faith in God has diminished but doesn’t want to be extinguished just yet.

AlmostAtheist

You don't have to take everything anyone says, you're welcome to pick and choose. For instance, Dawkins feels that evolution was a fully autonomous process, no god involved. Others (no names come to mind, but just people in general) feel that while evolution did happen, God's hand was on it along the way, directing it.

I am of the opinion that the process works fine without any intervention, divine or otherwise. Others wouldn't agree. But we can all read Dawkins to get the nuts and bolts of how evolution works.

Faith in a literal interpretation of Genesis and acceptence of evolution are almost surely opposed. But belief in a god and acceptance of evolution are compatible.

Dave

metatron

"Is Dawkins just another fundamentalist?"

I think you've hit the nail on the head. When I read Humanist publications, I am often struck by what appears to be, not mere

disbelief in religion, but an actual emotional hatred of it.

metatron

SixofNine

Believing things based on what you "want" to believe is just.plain.silly.

gumby

I 'want' Sixer to post more. Am I being too silly?

Gumby

AnnOMaly

You could do what Phillip E. Johnson did and read Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" and Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" side-by-side.

What bugs me about Dawkins (I agree he is a fundamentalist) is his attitude that only stupid, ignorant people believe in a God. Neither fair nor true. But he has some valid criticisms on the dark side of religion or religious people and I like to hear what he has to say.

Peppermint

Thanks Dave,
Well maybe I will start by reading Dawkins, after all he seems like a reasonable person (on TV anyway) . Is there a particular book that I should begin with?

I listened to Desert Island Discs a few weeks back and the person on it was a Philosopher called Mary Midgley :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/desertislanddiscs_20051120.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Midgley

She mentioned Dawkins a lot in the program and disagrees with a lot of what he stands for although she does not appear to be overtly religious herself, it was this program that got me thinking about the whole issue in the first place.

AlmostAtheist

As you and others pointed out, Dawkins is a bit of a fundy atheist. I read his "The Blind Watchmaker". It's informative and not written at such a high level that I was lost. (I'm not into biology, so as soon as terms like "allele" enter the discussion, I'm lost) His arrogance is a bit put-off'ing, but the information is understandable.

You can also get your feet plenty soaked over at http://talkorigins.org

And while you're in the mood, look up some of JWD poster SeattleNiceGuy's threads on "simple proofs of evolution". He's got some well-written, easy to understand articles.

Dave

Peppermint

"Believing things based on what you "want" to believe is just.plain.silly."

Agreed, however you just cant help what you want, but I would never let what I want stop me from accepting truth.

Abaddon

Peppermint

Good questions

The problem I have with the program is that I do not want to believe his point of view,

Here you show honesty; many would never admit this.

but I am feeling more and more drawn towards it. The point I notice most about his stance is that he feels religion and science just cannot sit side by side, you have to believe one or the other.

My question : Is Dawkins just another fundamentalist, one in a white overall opposed to a white collar (or blue/brown polyester suite in JW world). I know to the Christian community he is perceived as the anti-Christ, so maybe this is what drives him.

Errr... which part of the Christian community? The fundamental Christians who are determined that the Earth was created in six literal days? Oh, yes, they hate him.

The less radical CHristians who believe that there was no evolution between species? Those who have created a 'Trojan Horse' called ID? Yes, some of them don't like him either.

However, you're buying into their lie. They say that THEIR interpretation of Genesis is THE ONLY right one. Just like those Muslims who blow people up say that their interpretation of the Qu'ran is the only right one.

Just as there are many Muslims who do not believe in blowing people up, there are many Christians who believe in evolution. The Catholics gave that fight up as lost years ago. They're quite happy to accept most of modern evolutionary theory. Many sincere Christians of a liberal modern outlook feel the same. To them, Dawkins is no enemy.

This is not a fight between evolution and god. This is a fight between Biblical literalism and accepting reasonable evidence.

This is why Dawkins is not a fundamentalist. He accepts the evidence supporting various theories, indeed, drawing from evidence he makes theories. Many Christians do likewise - they see no reason why they should accept the Genesis account as literal. They see passages describing sulphur-breast-plated locusts - things they know are impossible - and know these are allegories or metaphors. They decide if all the evidence points to the Genesis creation account as being impossible, then it must also be an allegory or a metaphor.

A fundamentailist will say trees are pink and purple if their interpretation of their Holy Book makes them think that it says trees are pink and purple; even if you insert a green and brown tree up their nostril, they will deny the evidence of their own eyes. Is that wisdom?

Those who don't take a literalistic view of the Bible - does it reduce their faith in God one iota? No. In fact, you'll notice if you read Dawkins (his conclusion of 'The Ancestor's Tale' for example) that Dawkins feels the limitations put on the power of god by fundamentalists is almost sacreligious.

Fundamentalists are effectively saying "if a bronze age goatherd imagined the only way god could create the Universe was like some glorified potter, then that is the only way god can create the Universe".

Maybe some people think god can be larger and more wonderful than that?

After all, we are told to worship god in spirit and truth. We are told to use our minds; that's what they are there for, after all. To, instead of worshiping god to worship a book, black lines on squashed dead trees, would seem to be committing exactly the same error as the Pharasees, reducing belief in god to some ritualistic formula

The program did not contain a lot of meat so I want to read more, it really is a subject I have chosen not to explore until now.

Is Dawkins the only place to go with this, or are there other Evolutionists out there who give an easier to swallow outline of evolution, for an ex-jw who’s faith in God has diminished but doesn’t want to be extinguished just yet.

Go to Amazon.com and type in 'evolution'. You'll find a variety of books there. Dawkins is good. Gould is good. Check the reviews by people and go for one that sounds like you'll enjoy it.

Do not be drawn into the lies of fundamentalists. Although they might be sincere, they aren't trying to get you closer to god, but merely to their pre-determined idea of god, their opinion of god. In the end you end up worshipping their opinions, rather than god.

You say at the start;

I do not want to believe his point of view

... and you don't have to.

You can believe that god started it all in such a clever way (just as a skilled cook can) all the ingredients came together magically to form the complete dish, exactly as god wanted, using evolution.

You can believe god gave early hominds the gift of intelligence, them having evolved that far naturally.

There is not one shred of evidence to disprove those stances; unlike the fundamentalists, whose views are easily demonstrable as nonsesne using sound evidence.

And maybe god is inside out.

Maybe rather than US being made by god, WE (as in humans) make god. Just as a colony of ants will do things no individual ant can do, or things that cannot be predicted by looking at an ant (it's called an emergent characteristic), maybe 'god' is an emergent characteristic of human society? A feature of society that cannot be predicted by looking at individual humans, but no less 'real' for all it's lack of substance.

You really now have to find god as he may be to you, not as people have tried to sell him to you. It might means kissing the benevolent personality in the sky who will make it all better goobye. But it doesn't mean losing compassion, love, awe, or anything else like that.

Good luck, and don't be afraid to answer questions. We don't bite... well, only if people ignore the difference between having their own opinion and having their 'own' facts. Everyone is entitled to the former; there is only one set of the latter.

Is Dawkins the answer?

Share this