by KateWild 189 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Comparing Dawkins defense of scientific facts to an evangelical preacher's sermonising is profoundly disingenuous.-cofty
I disagree cofty. Dawkins wants to arm people with knowledge, so they are prepared to refute uneducated churchgoers, Holocaust deniers, and evolution/history deniers.
IMO it is a little preachy to me - Kate xx
it is a little preachy
How so?
It seems Dawkins is being dissed for his character rather than his work. Sad really...
I personally feel his character to be charming.
HOWEVER — what all you Dawkin's critics forget, is that he NEVER intended to dispute religion!
For you new ones, it may seem like he has been antireligious forever. NOT SO!
For those like me who have been following him, it is baltently apparent that his militant atheism was born from how he has been dragged in the mud by theists!!!
His 'evangelizing atheism' is a REACTION.
Self defense if you please.
So I would refrain from focusing on his apparent smugness, and concentrate on his work and logical arguments.
* I have seen him humbly acknowledge his mistakes, in particular with counter arguments from Krauss — that became his friend in the process.
cofty, I feel he is a little preach because
He writes in a way that it is damaging to society to deny evolution. He even uses the term, "I aspire to arm those that are not history deniers-but know some"Not only did this make me feel uncomfortable, IMO it is down right creepy and reminds me of Eph 6:10-20 Where the apostle Paul wants the reader to gear up for a preaching battle.
But that is just my veiw, perhaps I am bias...what do you think?
Kate xx
He writes in a way that it is damaging to society to deny evolution
It is. I would not want to live in a country where the majority of people were willfully blinded by religious dogma.
if it is ever discovered kepler was a smug, condescending anti-geocentric bully, i think that would provide ample reasons to suspect the heliocentric theory was false. At the very least, we should do our very best to conflate the topic with keplers personality.
Kate: is thery any other way to read that passage than simply saying dawkins want as many people to know the good arguments for evolution that convinced the vast majority of scientists evolution is an undisputed fact?
When people are disseminating false information as truth we to ensure the those who are influenced by the lies are provided with the genuine facts, that why we have sites like this that expose the JW's.
Dawkins is doing the same thing, evolution is a fact denied by ignorant people who have an agenda, and he wants to ensure those lies are exposed by presenting the facts.
I cannot see any parallel can be drawn with Richard Dawkins efforts and those of a Preacher of any ilk.
Preachers may well be spouting what they fervently believe, but it is simply that-Belief.
It has no basis in reality, fact or Science. It is indistinguishable from any other delusion.
Richard Dawkins is simply trying to get people to appreciate and understand Science, he held a University Chair with that brief , if memory serves.
He wants them to get a grasp of proven fact, not of some pipe-dream.
No parallel.
As to his books, I found the one in the Thread title to be excellent, it educated me on many aspects.
I found "The Ancestors Tale" a little harder going, but well worth the effort. I have yet to read more than just these two by him.
Etude said-
Not quite. In fact, Dawkins’ fervor is as militant and emphatic as the best of Evangelicals on TV. As I mentioned before, I get the feeling that Dawkins is rather smug about his theories to the chagrin of other scientists.
It seems you're confusing Dawkin's position on the existence of God (AKA atheism, a position which is outside of the realm of science, but well within the domain of skepticism, i.e. not believing in anything until AFTER there's evidence to justify the belief) with his position on the theory of evolution.
Like many believers, you're conflating 'faith' (which demands no perceptible evidence) with 'conviction' (which demands perceptible evidence). Many believers create a false equivalency, by saying evidence-based beliefs are as valid as evidence-free beliefs. Not so, but fortunately our criminal justice system generally requires physical evidence in order to convict someone of a capital crime (whether a murder weapon, the victim's body, etc).
BTW, you label yourself as a 'profound agnostic'. What's so 'profound' about your agnosticism? Do you use that adjective perhaps to discriminate yourself from the 'frivolous and hasty agnostics'?
Seriously, I'm curious: what meaning do you think you're giving to the term by sticking 'profound'before it?
BTW, are you SURE you're an agnostic, and not an atheist?
The question is, based on the evidence you've examined, have you concluded that a God(s) existence? If YES, you are a theist. If you say NO, then you are an atheist.
If you say, "I'm not sure, since the evidence is inconclusive" AND you are a skeptic, then your answer would be that you don't believe in a God, since you'd reject the theists' claim and remain neutral (after all, the evidence is inconclusive) and you wouldn't go around telling others that you do (just as you'd also NOT believe in fairies, unicorns, etc). You would be a 'soft atheist'.
If you say, "I'm not sure, since the evidence is inconclusive" AND you're NOT a skeptic, then your answer would be despite a lack of conclusive evidence you DO personally believe in Gods, but don't go around telling others that Gods exist. You would be a 'soft theist'.
Adam
