Is Dawkins the answer?

by Peppermint 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Abaddon

  Peppermint

  Dawkins points out (caustically) that there is no evidence that religious experiences come from any external source.

  Compare saying;

  1a/ 'the sense of taste is worthless'

  ...and

  1/b 'there is no evidence that taste come from any external source'

  ... to saying;

  2a/ 'religious experiences are worthless'

  ... and

  2b/ 'there is no evidence that religious experiences come from any external source'

  1a is opinion, and its worth if bought into question by 1b which is demonstrably false.

  2a is also opinion, buts is arguably of worth as 2b supports it

  You might not LIKE Dawkins saying religious expience is worthless, but he has clear grounds to do so.

  YOU might not be hypocritical for feeling this way.

  However, many theists ARE hypocritical to say this as they feel all religous experiences that disagree with their own are worthless.

  They criticise Dawkins for feeling exactly as they do about other religions, but wail when their own beliefs are similarly criticised.

  Most theists do not believe in 99.9999% of all gods ever believed in.

  This means atheists are only 0.0001% different from theists - they simply believe in one god less than most theists.

  Yet many theists - hypoctitically - wail if anyone has the cheek not to believe in THEIR god, when they disbelieve in all other gods themselves.

  They will refuse to accept other people, maybe in a loin cloth with a bone through their nose, or maybe in the church next door, have valid religious experiences or ideas about god, on the basis of their own religious experiences and ideas about god when, in terms of proof, both sets of ideas about god and both sets of religious experience are as valid as each other.

  Can you maybe see why Dawkins gets caustic? When most religious people condemn him for being slightly more thorough than them when it comes to disbelieveing religious experiences, and don't realise the massive double standard they thereby display!

  Some fun reading;

  http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_arg_experience.htm?iam=metaresults&terms=experiences

  http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml

  hooberus, Those sites misrepresent decent science. You know this. Stop spreading misinformation.
• 

  LittleToe

  My opinion would be that Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist. He is disparaging of those with religious beliefs and has as much vehemence for his chosen group as do fundamentalists of other varieties. IMHO fundamentalism is charecterised by intolerance of some form or other.

  THere's a difference in quality between myself and FunkyDerek getting into an animated debate on a subject, while being respectful of each other, to the methods employed by Dawkins.

  That having been said, I love his science, and I also believe that evolution is a rational explanation for why we have so much diversity on this planet. I state that as one with strong Christian-oriented beliefs and an inate sense of spirituality. I've loved biology and the other sciences all my life, and this doesn't shake my faith. Dave's "Bob" post, on faith, was excellent in this regard

  Evolution generally shies away from bio-genesis, though, and rightly so as it's an "unknown".

  While the bible is comprehensible to goat-herders, it also resonates with quite a number of people in th 21st century. It is at this very human level that it works, giving many a framework with which to face the world and get through the day. It's clearly not for all, though.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  wow. i need a secretary that can just scan JWD for me, and send me links when interesting topics come up. nice thread peppermint.

  dawkins is no fundamentalist. dawkins will follow the facts wherever they lead him. he just thinks, and with good reason, that scientific method is the best thing humans have ever come up with for determining the truest reality of the universe. and he is not going to pussy-foot around people so that he doesn't hurt their feelings. scientists have been pussy-footing around religious people for too long. dawkins feels that time should end, and he is simply taking up the mantle. if religion survives or not, he actually doesn't care. it's what people think about science that matters. he will say things like (paraphrasing): "why do two conflicting ideas both have to be partly right? it's entirely possible that one is completely wrong, and the other completely right." and when you think about it in terms of evolution, based on the score board between evolution and creationism on the technical front, evolution wins by a land slide. so why should he pussy-foot around with people who who stubbornly hold to creationism, not for technical reasons, but for religiously fueld motives? so far, dawkins makes sense to me.

  and personally, i agree with dawkins in the end when he says that religion and evolution are incompatible. this not only makes xians sort of pissed at me sometimes, but even many atheists. which is fine. i say so because it's about more than genesis as literal or metaphorocal. it's about what the philosophy of the theory of evolution does to entire religious doctrines. if evolution is true, what does it really mean to this part of my doctrine. eventually, you get to the point where the gaps that god fills is so small, that he really seems like just a little geeky computer programmer in some other dimension. add to that, that we can find no evidence (read: 0) for the existence of this god, and you start to kind of go: "um, ya, i guess so. science and religion do not mix very well. one is continually chipping away at the other, and the other is not really doing anything substantial about the situation apart from screaming "bloody murder!" by basically just lying about the situation in article after article on different web sites..

  is dawkins the answer?

  i think the world owes a lot to sir richard dawkins. of all the intellectuals today, i like what he has to say the most. he brings the theory of evolution, and its implications, alive in the minds of readers. i would call him the first of his kind.

  there is a free version of the blind watchmaker available online:

  http://www.evolutionary.tripod.com/dawkins_blindwatchmaker_1996_full.pdf

  cheers,

  TS

  By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  -- Richard Dawkins, in "Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder," The Richard Dimbleby Lecture, BBC1 Television (12 November 1996)

  I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
  -- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

  Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.
  -- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)

  Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
  -- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  Dawkins is a fundamentalist

  dawkins is no fundamentalist

  And there we have it.

  Could it be we're working under different definitions of "fundy" here? LT and I are apparently viewing it from a "way they deal with others" standpoint. Both Dawkins and religious fundys spout their views as if they were the only views available to any clear-thinking person, without regard to how hard such words might hit the listener.

  The other fundy definition seems to be more about how the opinions stated so perfunctorily are arrived at. In other words, both Dawkins and Reverend Knowmoore state their opinions as if they were fact, but because Dawkins' opinions are actually supported by facts, he isn't a fundy. The good reverend has little backing his claims, so he's a fundy.

  If that's the only difference in our opinions, then we don't actually differ save for our definition of fundy.

  Dave
• 

  funkyderek

  LittleToe:

  My opinion would be that Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist. He is disparaging of those with religious beliefs and has as much vehemence for his chosen group as do fundamentalists of other varieties. IMHO fundamentalism is charecterised by intolerance of some form or other.

  Then I'm a fundamentalist too. A fundamentalist non-racist. I have no tolerance for racism, and I vehemently disparage anyone who claims that people of one "race" are superior to those of another.
• 

  Abaddon

  Hi Ross,

  (we got to the "no gonnie do" bit in Chewing the fat, v fun)

  While the bible is comprehensible to goat-herders, it also resonates with quite a number of people in th 21st century. It is at this very human level that it works, giving many a framework with which to face the world and get through the day. It's clearly not for all, though.

  We have to draw a big line between supposed historical reportage, inspirational writing (not as in godidit neccesarily, but as in 'what an inspired idea' as in bloody clever irreductable and right), and subtext.

  The supposed historical reportage is frequently NOT accurate. I know you don't despute this. Such passages don't resonate to anyone with half a clue.

  Things like 'do not muzzle an oxen threshing grain' or 'you strain the gnat and swallow the camel' or anyone of many 'good sayings' do still resonate to many nowadays.

  The subtext is open to individual interpretation, as is whether there is one unified subtext. For example, it you think the subtext is 'be nice', and you think this is a good idea, it will resonate to you.
• 

  Abaddon

  Given that fundamentalist means;

  1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
  
  2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

  ... we can all be right on this one, if you regard scientific methodology as a 'set of basic principles', which is pretty reasonable.

  However, the common term is where similarity ends, as the paradigms used to come to a conclusion are totally different for definition 1 fundy and definiton 2 scientific method fundy.

  As this is so, it's not particulary useful to apply the term to Dawkins, as its use distorts the appreciable and important difference in paradigms.
• 

  gaiagirl

  If you want to read other authors who may be more palatable, I strongly suggest works by Carl Sagan, Timothy Ferris, and Stephen Jay Gould, Fred Alan Wolf, Frijof Capra, and Gary Zukav.
• 

  Peppermint

  Thank you everyone for the responses given , they have been very helpful to me.
  
  Dave,
  I enjoyed your story and look forward to the release of the book. Plants before bees you say, one more thing to look into.
  
  RodentBoy
  You comment about his words being taken out of context by the JW’s and to imagine how he must feel and how he must react. This is the point I was making about what drives him, I would feel happier reading him if he was impervious to it.
  
  Abaddon,
  Your post is thought provoking and one I will digest as I study the subject further. The link you provided: ARGUEING FOR GOD-What is the argument from religious experience? Was excellent. Thanks.
  
  Little Toe,
  Your definition of a fundamentalist is how I view it. I am happy to see that you are able to retain your faith and recognize Evolution. You are in a place where I wouldn’t mind ending up, but time will tell.
  
  Tetrapod. Sapien,
  I love this board, opinion varies so widely here, and its only when you get differences of opinion that you truly start to think about things and analyze your own beliefs. As a Witness I was open to nothing and really did not think. I learned things but I did not think. I am sure this is why Dawkins sees Religion and Evolution as incompatible. Thanks for your comments and the link to the Blind Watchmaker.
  
  Gaia girl,
  I appreciate the reading list. I did manage to pick up a copy of Unweaving the Rainbow yesterday, not sure if this is a good place to start, but it was all I could find. I am 40 pages in and so far very good reading. The only problem with it, its yet one more book in a growing pile that I am having to find hiding places for when I have certain visitors…oh well.