Return to: Home | Life & Society | Religion

62 comments from readers

r willox
05 August 2008 at 16:48

Paradoxically it is the religious moderate that is more dangerous than the extreme fundamentalist. You know where you stand with the fundamentalist.

The moderate, however, given their massaging and easy re-interpretation of the texts of their faith make it easy for the fundamentalist to maintain a foothold in their 'faith' and in their communities.

All theistic belief systems are based on the falsehood that there needs to be something bigger and to be 'super' in some way to make the world a reality. There is no need to postulate the existence of such a being or power as evolution by natural selection clearly shows and perfectly explains.

As long as the 'moderates' are enabled to pursue their own ends then nothing will ever change and the acceptance of individual rights and freedoms will continue to be eroded in the name of these same rights and freedoms.

First Ade
05 August 2008 at 17:34

I would have liked an example of how it is that being a disciplined and objective scientist is inharmonious with being an "evangelical" atheist - I rather feel that the one position assumes the other.

Some examples of what rational thinkers would have in common with people who believe in gods, ghosts, and demons (apart from a common ancestor) would have been nice as well.

What I find particularly interesting is the Russell quote - very selective indeed, seeing as he mentions in the very same paragraph that religion also helped to fix the calender, and then goes on to say: "These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others". You could have quoted the part where he says that he agrees with Lucretius, in that he regards religion: "...as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the Human Race".

We do not need to find harmony with people who think that the world is controlled by an invisible god - we need those people to grow up.

nigele1
05 August 2008 at 17:56

What seems to frighten the author is that people who do not believe in a deity can, nevertheless, hold beliefs and put their faith in natural/physical processes and a rational understanding of the world and human existence. The problem seems to be, for those holding this position, that this is not "my" faith and therfore lacks validity and divine fiat.

What Dawkins questions is why individuals and societies need religions. This is an improvement on the "we need Gods because we need faith" argument, which puts off the challenge of creating a world where we can both believe in ourselves and question the various versions of religious infallibility including the secular absolutisms.

BobChurchill
05 August 2008 at 18:13

> "with the unsettling figure given by the British Humanist Association that at least 40 UK schools teach creationism"

The BHA press release, with more details on the figures and how they were arrived at, is at:

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?arti...

Note that these figures are not the direct findings of the BHA; the BHA was responding to a survey conducted by More4 News.

John Campbell
05 August 2008 at 20:00

The problem that the author here and others are struggling with is that rationalism carried over into the realm of religion creates an atheistic bias. Methodological objectivism is the norm in the scientific method. Dawkins is merely applying that objectivism to religion. The problem isn't that he's no longer objective, but perhaps too objective about too many things at once. I agree that it does not, from a PR perspective, lend well to the support of rational thought by our religious peers, but that is a sad reality that demonstrates the difficulty in speaking openly from a critical view about religion. Science provides natural explanations of things. That is its role. Dawkins' only danger is that he may be overzealously attacking religion, inadvertently attacking allies of scientific thought whose naturalistic views begin and end at the laboratory door. In a world where a major power, my country-the US, is embarassingly close to teaching myths in the classroom, we DO need moderate allies.

entrails
05 August 2008 at 21:01

New Note 95

A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist, whatever adjective is used to describe them---religious, scientific, atheist, green... A fundamentalist, in the pejorative sense we seem to favour at present, cannot accept, or even believe, that any view other than their own is acceptable or right, and therein lies their tragedy, or comedy depending on how you prefer it!

Richard Dawkins, like a rabid Bible thumping preacher, has made himself a caricature and laughing stock for anyone who cares to step back and critically observe his behaviour and argument.

It is a basic category mistake to argue that 'science' and 'religion' are dealing with the same questions, as though one is simply a drop in and logical replacement for the other. Many people of deep faith have no problem whatsoever in reconciling their faith with the science they practise, in fact often the one complements the other.

'Science' has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of 'God'---as though such a concept is simply another beetle or bottle of gas. That does not stop the fundamentalist atheists from insisting that their caricature of what constitutes faith/religion is the correct one---an 'aunt sally' if ever there was one.

It makes for great entertainment, but, to quote the bard, ultimately they are 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'---nothing except their own fury that anyone should have the temerity to disagree with them (and the same can be said, of course, of those on the other side of the fundamentalist coin who rant and rage against the unbelievers; as though 'God' should need their defence or justification).

tonysidaway
06 August 2008 at 07:00

I think nobody watching the recently broadcast "The Genius of Charles Darwin" could reasonably view Dawkins as "belligerent." Here, faced with a science class where some children (rightly) questioned scientific evidence in the light of what they had been taught by their parents, Dawkins in turn put reasonable questions, for instance could it right for all people to believe what they had been taught first, even though the beliefs contradict one another.

That the children themselves first raised those religious objections to science wasn't a set-up. The same is happening in science classrooms everywhere. As Dawkins himself said, children get a lifetime of religious indoctrination, and (under our national curriculum) just a few hours in a science classroom on the subject of evolution.

Science teachers up and down the country are facing this conflict between religion and science. What's wrong with Dawkins demonstrating that conflict and tackling it as any good science teacher should, by teaching children to question question science but also to treat alternative hypotheses, including religious claims, on the same basis?

entrails
06 August 2008 at 07:48

'What's wrong with Dawkins demonstrating that conflict and tackling it as any good science teacher should, by teaching children to question question science but also to treat alternative hypotheses, including religious claims, on the same basis?'

Nothing wrong with that at all; and if that was all RD did it would be unexceptional. Problems arise when the particular question and/or misapplication of religious faith to inappropriately answer a question that is properly answered through a scientific approach is then offered as 'proof' that faith in God per se is illogical (and even wicked). This is when the purveyor of such a view begins to reveal themselves as just as blinded, bigoted, and irrational as the very people and beliefs they are ranting against.

It is worth remembering that much of the scientific method we have gained so much from grew directly out of the 'faithful' studies of people who trusted in the existence of God. The fact that other 'religious' people have chosen to abuse their faith and the findings of science; either out of ignorance and fear, or for their own political and economic ends, is no indication that faith in God in itself is invalid or irrational, unless of course the rules of the game are rewritten to make it so---which RD seems quite happy to do Fair enough, that is what often happens in the heat of argument, but we should then have the critical honesty to note that his argument is no more rational and properly made than many of the arguments and beliefs he derides.

tonysidaway
06 August 2008 at 08:31

entrails, you write: "Problems arise when the particular question and/or misapplication of religious faith to inappropriately answer a question that is properly answered through a scientific approach is then offered as 'proof' that faith in God per se is illogical (and even wicked). This is when the purveyor of such a view begins to reveal themselves as just as blinded, bigoted, and irrational as the very people and beliefs they are ranting against. "

This is true. Did you watch that program? Where did Dawkins do the things you accuse him of?

entrails
06 August 2008 at 09:14

I'm not particularly talking about that program, which I've not seen, but about RD's behaviour generally in the last few years.

entrails
06 August 2008 at 09:16

I'm not referring to that particular program, which I've not seen, but to RD's behaviour generally in recent times.

ChrisBenton
06 August 2008 at 10:54

"It’s quite clear that what the New Atheists are doing is lumping all the religious together in one bundle."

It would be less clear if you had actually read the books. The first substantive chapter of The God Delusion is devoted to describing the different concepts of god, and the distinction between fundamentalist and moderate belief is maintained throughout.

Why not actually engage the arguments, rather than throwing cheap slurs of "fundamentalist atheism"?

James
06 August 2008 at 11:41

The only thing I can be 100% certain of is that I am thinking. No room for faith in a diety then- since faith requires certainty (not proof though). Next comes a bundle of propositions that I can be very close to certain about: I have a nervous system, there is an external universe, others exist within it. Then there are things that, through corroboration with others I can be fairly ertain about: the universe has some objective qualities, maths has a secure self-supporting logic which supports physical theories etc, the scientific method can explain a lot etc.. After this comes things that must be open to considerable doubt because even through corroboration with others there is too much left unquantified. I simply cannot accept faith in the existance of a diety. I can accept the outside possibility of there being one- after all the universe is very very strange- but that is nowhere close to faith. It is like accepting that there may well be life somewhere else in the univerese- you don't let it influence your day-to-day life.

entrails
06 August 2008 at 12:28

@James

'No room for faith in a diety then- since faith requires certainty (not proof though)', but right there is an assertion which someone may hold to but in general practise many people who have 'faith' in God do not hold, and would not claim to hold---that their faith is based on certainty (and certainly not on proof).

They may say their faith in God is a matter of 'trust', which is quite different from depending on being 'certain' or having 'proof'.

As far as I understand RD he demands that people who believe in God (whatever that may mean for them), must hold that belief according to his understanding of what belief in God means/requires. It is a very poor starting point for any attempt at a rational argument, however valid aspects of his subsequent argument it may be. RD's starting point for denying the existence of God and rejecting the validity of any 'religious' belief, from what I have read of it, is selective and subjective according to his own beliefs and prejudices, so of course he finds all the evidence he needs to reach the conclusion he intends to reach; which is, of course, not a scientific approach.

Carl Packman
06 August 2008 at 21:47

I will take the time to reply to some comments.

Firstly,

- r. wilcox - moderates are not just the ones who shout the least loudest, in one sense those who insist on secularism - a fair number of nameable commentators and historical figures, we might consider, as a good example, the General Jewish Labour Union who were against zionism to name but one. However what I'm pursuing in my article is an atheism, not hostile to all religious people for this sake alone, but hostility toward the teaching of a dangerous and mad philsophy heavily charged with bad intentions. Where Darwinism is a proven means of analysing pretty much everything natural, creationism, I see as having less philanthropic intentions. Here I think, towards where the moderate religious is concerned, Dawkins is cutting of his nose to spite his face.

- First ade - A lot of scientists would disagree with your statement. The point I was trying to achieve was that Dawkins cancelled his subscription to objectivity when he packed his programme on Darwin with emotional responses to religion. I remember watching a morning chat show discussing the subject of assisted suicide, for those against it there was a doctor of some sort, very intellectual and immensly sure of himself. Arguing for the case of assisted suicide was a young girl whose Mother had just died after suffering a very long and painful death due to breast cancer. I remember thinking how absurd this argument was going to be given the level of objectivity the guests were allowed the chance to be given. I certainly don't want to watch Dawkins argue his case in a debate and be moved to think he cannot have a learned argument without getting passionately irrate, as anyone who watched him talk with Ted Haggard in his last series will know he can be - evoking the infamous "want a bet" comment.

Further, I would argue that what humanists would consider morally relativist principles such as health and prosperity for the poor, a religious person, let us say Wat Tyler, might consider a religious imperitive. Despite its descent, they both meet on their point cause.

- ChrisBenton - Indeed Dawkins does namesake a few religions in his polemic of course, and its obvious that to challenge all religions one is going to have to do some specifying, but I would point out that Dawkins imagines "The Roots of Religion" as his chapter evokes, as a by-product of a child's slavish adherence and inheritence to his parents' religion, arousing his theory of cultural memes. I might also, as I was at the point you criticise referring to all New Atheists, like to point out Hitchens' subheading for his American print of God is not Great "Religion Poisons Everything". Its quite clear that they do indeed lump all religions, which I have taken to be counterproductive in the battle against creationism.

Thanks.

MaxDunbar
07 August 2008 at 10:35

Carl

Were we watching the same programme?

I saw this yesterday on 4OD and Dawkins seemed to concentrate mainly on Darwin's life and work: stressing at several points that Darwin's theories are more interesting than our most powerful creation myths.

It's a feature of the 'New Atheists' that detractors tend to focus on the tone, rather than the content, of their arguments.

Yet I'm not sure how this gentle, stammering, elderly professor can be described as 'belligerent' except by someone who is particularly oversensitive.

The 'fundamentalist atheist' meme really is getting old now isn't it? In the words of John Carter Wood:

'Until the day that Richard Dawkins appears on television standing in front of a poster of Darwin while holding an AK-47 and screaming for the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, can we find a different, perhaps more appropriate adjective to describe his approach?'

Still, the cliche of the evangelical atheist does have some uses in that it helps people to avoid taking on Dawkins's actual arguments.

the universe
07 August 2008 at 12:51

Meme Hotel

That's ALL you are

this feelgood message was brought to you by Richard Dawkins and the Uber Reductionists

Lee Picton
07 August 2008 at 12:54

Using the term "fundamental atheist" is a cheap shot that in no way describes what could, at most be called evangelical atheism. I'm from across the pond in that wacky America that until very recently was showing a dangerous listing toward extreme conservatism, embodied no less by a president (the worst in all our history) who claimed god talked to him. Considering how many nuclear weapons we have, I can well understand the horror and contempt with which he is held in the world at large. I understand completely the charges being leveled against moderates. We Americans have been tolerant of a lot of things and when faced with confrontation in religion, have tended to avoid it. But enough is enough. I see my government, my schools, and my public square infested with real fundamentalists, who have used the passivity of the live-and-let-live moderates to influence public policy out of all proportion to their numbers. Indeed, I used to be one of them until the day I finally woke up to the very real danger they present. In short, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!" The "new atheism" is, I believe, the inevitable reactive pushback, and I welcome it with enthusiasm.

Ken
07 August 2008 at 17:29

Some readers may recall Gary Larson's cartoon "what dogs hear". It would seem that for some viewers all the bits of Dawkins' programme that were about Darwin might as well have been "blah blah blah". As this was most of it they must have been very patient to sit through it all.

entrails
07 August 2008 at 18:25

I get the impression the commentator (and some responses), are trying to get a little bit behind the surface appearance of Dawkins on Darwin in the light of things he has said elsewhere.

No doubt RD can present his arguments eloquently, but that doesn't mean they should not be treated with the same critical awareness as anything said by anyone else.

DMaze
10 August 2008 at 03:44

I heard Richard Dawkins speak last winter at the University of Texas to an unexpectedly large audience of mostly young people. The overflow watched via TV in an adjoining building. Dawkins was impressive and I think he's the type we need to head off this creeping cancer caused creationism. It has metastasized in the U.S. the past few decades and needs to be headed off. It has frozen the thinking process of many Americans, even many who should know better. Now, if a few American firebrand biologists would just join him.

jaytron
10 August 2008 at 16:52

I don't think there is much I can add to those who are in favor of freethought (those who would choose rationality over slavery to religious thought). It seems the author of this NS article suffers from this "thought slavery" himself. Mr. Packman should remember that a free society is free because it has human rights and the freedom to question--perhaps the most precious right of all. Religion (not the religious as he would imply is the target of Dawkins) most desperately NEEDS to be questioned and placed under the microscope as other ideas are. It also needs to be condemned as nonsense if that is where the evidence leads. If we do not expose religion to this type of scrutiny, then how dare we proclaim ourselves as a rational society?

wncooney
10 August 2008 at 17:12

Here in the United States, it is no exageration to state that religious fundamentalists have a virtual stanglehold on many government institutions - not the least of which would be the Supreme Court. We 'New Atheists' feel duty bound to change this situation. We do not want religion out of 'public' life but rather out of 'government'.

As for RD: I listened to the audio book version of 'God Delusion' several times and ascerbic though its tone toward religion was on occasions, I believe RD was simply saying that the matter of God's existence should be treated as any other hypothosis and the scientific method can be brought to bear on this question. And after Dawkin's applies it, his conclusion is merely that "God almost certainly does not exist".

RD, by the way, also decrys on a number of occasions the rampant religiosity and 'privelidged status' it enjoys in the U.S. The reactionary posture of the "New Atheists" is totally understandable.

Carl Packman
11 August 2008 at 05:58

jaytron; I support the freedom to scrutinise religion to safeguard a free society, my article appeals to the unity of the moderately religious and atheists against creationism, on a political platform. On this very platform I see it as redundant to dismiss the religious when there is potentially a common enemy to fight. I've never criticised Dawkins for being an atheist, my goodness how could I? On the question of a deity then the moderately religious and atheists are going to disagree, much like pro- and anti-war elements of the Labour Party will disagree, but this doesn't exclude their unity on a more general level.

wncooney; I feel that the fight in North America really does entail a dissatisfaction with the religious right. I can, however, be certain that in your country, as well as mine, certain elements of the religious community will want to stop the acceleration of creationsim, as much as, I assume, you do. Quite simply, the religious left. Just the other day I was looking at the Christian Alliance for Progress. I don't know enough about them to properly exemplify them, but this is enough to see there are elements of religious people in the states that are dissatisfied with Pat Robertson and the like.

After all, as your own words would seem to me to imply, 'New Atheists' feel duty bound to change this situation. Indeed any atheist would feel duty bound, but , as I mentioned on a political platform, many of the moderately religious will join you. The likes of Dawkins are unable to border their atheism with their political realism.

evolvingdarwin
16 August 2008 at 13:03

Ever wonder why theists are always attacking scientists when they question there religion are they afraid to find out the truth?

ETW
21 August 2008 at 03:49

I saw nothing wrong with Professor Dawkins' documentary, "The Genius of Charles Darwin". Everything he said was reasonable and backed by evidence. The show was both informative and inspiring, and I look forward to many more. Cheers to a great production.

mplsandrew
24 August 2008 at 22:54

This author relies on one of the most predictable arguments hurled at atheists. When confronted with an atheist who vehemently insists on evidence (such as Dawkins), he cries, "Aha! You are passionately supporting your ideas, just like a fundamentalist! Your atheism is just another form of religion." It is so tiring to hear this over and over from the defenders of faith. I have yet to see on BBC or CNN a story about a fundamentalist atheist blowing himself up or bombing an abortion clinic. All Dawkins is demanding from believers is that they subject religion to the same scientific scrutiny as you would any other theory. Saying that Dawkins is a fundamentalist and an evangelical preacher is a somewhat sad attempt to discredit him without examining his position. Besides, what is a fundamentalist atheist exactly? In the words of A.C. Grayling, "Would he be someone who believed only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe?"

planet
25 August 2008 at 09:10

Atheism has nothing to prove. What's are Dawkins' writing, claims, disclaimers all about then?. What is his aim?. What is he trying to achieve. With respect to the genious who brings (to me at least) a (and he can repeat it again and again, seemingly fresh each time) sense of quite honestly, common sense, an economy of information (to use one of his phrases). He does not deny something wonderful for us that people (believers in religion) feel a need to believe in. He simply highlights the compelling and beautiful nature of the completeness of what is already without the need to make up more or need more. To quote from one of his passages, "if one takes a moment to look at what already is in the world and universe, one will see that it provides more mystery and beauty than one could possibly imagine to need in plugging that fancied gap". He argues that we all keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out. Best of all, he argues something that I have taught my own daughter, which is a great lesson in life, questions things, ask why?, be true to thyself and accept no "truth" or "theory" blindly. This reminds me of another of his muses. If you hear hooves clip clopping down a London street, before you believe it is anything other than a horse (such as a zebra or a unicorn) we should demand a certain minimal standard of evidence. For those interested, these quotes (though not word for word, but OK since I am not criticizng him) are taken from his Nov 12th 1996 BBC Richard Dimbleby lecture entitled "Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder". A gem.

planet
26 August 2008 at 01:37

I should have done this properly in my last post, but here's the actual quote taken from that lecture (word for word).

[It's often said that people 'need' something more in their lives than just the material world. There is a gap that must be filled. People need to feel a sense of purpose. Well, not a BAD purpose would be to find out what is already here, in the material world, before concluding that you need something more. How much more do you want? Just study what is, and you'll find that it already is far more uplifting than anything you could imagine needing.]

planet
26 August 2008 at 01:51

And here's Dawkins' quote about "economy of explanation"... the man has a way with words!

[It really comes down to parsimony, economy of explanation. It is possible that your car engine is driven by psychokinetic energy, but if it looks like a petrol engine, smells like a petrol engine and performs exactly as well as a petrol engine, the sensible working hypothesis is that it is a petrol engine. Telepathy and possession by the spirits of the dead are not ruled out as a matter of principle. There is certainly nothing impossible about abduction by aliens in UFOs. One day it may be happen. But on grounds of probability it should be kept as an explanation of last resort. It is unparsimonious, demanding more than routinely weak evidence before we should believe it. If you hear hooves clip-clopping down a London street, it could be a zebra or even a unicorn, but, before we assume that it's anything other than a horse, we should demand a certain minimal standard of evidence.]

planet
26 August 2008 at 03:18

"ajko", you got it all wrong mate.

[It makes for great entertainment, but, to quote the bard, ultimately they are 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing']

Your statement proves that people like you are only capable of dismissing objective thought and reasoning, albeit scientific reasoning. You close the door to debate and belittle it as "entertainment".

Dawkins is not closing the door to religion. He opens it wide - wide open for scrutiny that is. He exposes the flaws in the argument they present for why we should believe them.

[...signifying nothing]. are you for real?. are you not hearing anything that's been said ?.

The mistake you make (which Dawkins doesn't and neither do I) is that you rubbish anything the Asheist has to say without reasoned argument. At least Dawkins is providing a basis for everything he argues and it's not from the vantage point of disrespect or fury.

"Fury" (if that's what it may be) is a by-product of cause/effect. Look what can happen when people believe in religion and use it in the wrong way.

Where there may be disrespect, it's only toward those who use religious belief to hurt others or whom try to force feed and label children something they themselves cannot fully understand or compare to other way of thinking.

I don't actually see any fury coming from the Dawkins camp. I prefer to call it "irritation", irritation at the fact that the world has to swallow everything that religious believers throw its way. Those who would have us all believe that we can have no morality without believing in a supernatural god. Dawkins is simply having the courage, the balls, iron balls at that, to stand up and say it. You know why?, because he has "reason" to believe (and highlights that there's reason enough for so many more of us to also believe) that it's all a crock of...

Once again (and I stand by Dawkins on this one) why should religion have a voice, proclaim so much, encourage (at least some constituent parts) voilence, murder, using planes as weapons, etc etc and that's apparently OK to many of the believers (even if you don't condone it, granted), but on the other hand, scientists should simply shut up?. Listen, Dawkins is using a peaceful (even if he is irritated) power of intelligent, sophisticated, reasoned debate, face to face (without cowering behind bombs - because in his world we don't need them). He debate, but doesn't argue that we shouldn't have respect for those who follow a religious faith. He instead argues that it's time enough for the world to afford science a similar level of respect, an equal platform, an open ear - to hear its voice. It has something to say (without claiming that it can answer all or explain all), just as you and I know religious believers clearly have (and demand) that voice.

When I told my mother (staunch practicing roman catholic) over dinner that I didn't believe in god. She was not only dissappointed but also had a need to explain to me that "see Phil, you may not believe in god, but he can go to work on YOU anytime" spoken with a element of threat or perhaps better a word is "caution" or "warning". Don't believe, at your own peril!!. It's exactly that mentality that is dangerous and non-embracing of other possibilities.

The irony in that story is that, whereas she felt a "need" to try somehow to "scare" me witless into thinking that I'll go to hell if I don't believe and that anytime, god to just take charge of me and "go to work" on me. It didn't have that effect on me, but clearly she would be (and is) scared to not believe. She can't handle the possibility that after her body dies, there may be no more.

That fear is understandable, but fear doesn't justify faith in the supernatural realm.

dct
26 August 2008 at 08:36

After reading 'The God Delusion', I would say that Dwakins is a great ahteist of our time. He is second to Charles Darwin.

In fact, Professor Dwakins has strengthened Darwinism.

dct

AL
30 August 2008 at 22:12

How can an atheist be a fundementalist? This is a contradiction. A fundementalist is someone who believes faithfully in a particular religion or god despite no evidence to support this belief, indeed the less evidence the better. Atheism is knowledge. Knowledge that there is no god, based on overwhelming evidence. The pre-requisite of fundementalism is a demand to believe in a mythical creator. Planethowels is right, there is no fury, only irritation because of irrational nonsense. Religion is based on fear or ignorance or both. The bigger the lie...

AL
30 August 2008 at 22:37

Aijko. A fundementalist will refuse to believe in an alternative. As you correctly point out they `cannot accept that another view other than their own is right .` Indeed the less evidence the more righteous. Athiests (most noteably Richard Dawkins) will readily change their opinion at the first sign of any scientific evidence to support a god. An athiest arrives at a conclusion through evidence, truth and logical reason.

planet
31 August 2008 at 17:01

Bravo AL. I like your last post. It says something quite powerful and rational. It brought (for me) the term "fundamentalist" to a new level of clarity. This is the point actually. People often misunderstand what Dawkins is all about. They think that he fights the "evolution v creationism" fight. He does do that, but that isn't the point. That fight is an incidental and symptomatic one that almost inevitably emerges from a deeper conflict. The conflict I'm referring to is "Rationalism v Superstition". It's that simple. There can be no points scored for belief based on superstition because it's a non rational proposition, whereas the rationalistic (aka “scientific“) one, is a solid and reasoned proposition where all cards are laid on the table and everything argued is NOT based on the proposition of nothingness, superstitious romanticism or wishes derived from fear. Dawkins himself lists out 7 milestones along a continuous path between 2 extremes (the 100% believer in god “I know he exists” and the 100% non believer “I know he doesn’t exist”). Dawkins suggests that the category 1 (100% believer) compared to category 2 (I don't 100% know, but I believe strongly and therefore base my life on the assumption of his presence) is well populated and this is because the "fundamentalist" (YES, perfect usage of the word) (a) needs no evidence for or against God’s existence and (b) is not open to alternatives; both because he/she/they "know" god exists unequivocally. The opposite is not true (and this is most interesting) at the Atheist end. It’s far less likely that an Atheist will consider the apparent lack of evidence in favour of god’s existence (or the lack of solid evidence that he doesn’t exist) as sufficient conviction to place ones belief in that of category 7 (remember the most extreme, “I know category doesn’t exist”). This is why Dawkins states that he is in category 6 (I cannot say 100% that god doesn’t exist, but I think it highly improbable that he does, therefore I live my life on the basis that he isn’t there [though Dawkins also says that he is leaning toward category 7]). Personally, this for me adds remarkable credibility for the school of thought to which Dawkins is central. As if I haven’t said enough, here’s another gem. Taken from Dawkins’s “The God Delusion”, he invites the reader to imagine a situation (no matter how unlikely, because after all we can’t rule it out as “impossible”) whereby scientists discover DNA from Jesus. After analysis, scientists prove without doubt that Jesus could NOT have had a biological (human) father. Clearly this would be justification for the belief that God does exist, thus providing sufficient evidence for “design”. Would the church (no matter what religion) then say the usual “science – keep out, what you have to say is meaningless when it comes to the realm of understanding that is beyond science’s remit”? ... Of course not; they would trumpet the scientific findings to highest heaven – forgive the pun!

planet
31 August 2008 at 17:22

small correction ...

"(remember the most extreme, “I know category doesn’t exist”). "

should read

"(remember the most extreme, “I know God doesn’t exist”)."

hugger
01 September 2008 at 01:26

The telescope and the microscope render the Bible meaningless and corroborate the RD perspective. His critics do not understand the scientific method that rational people require to support a god hypothesis. Science not religion now provides the best explanations about the origin of the cosmos and the origin of species. Scientists interpret the data whereas the religious folk merely have faith. As Freud said the people will believe in religion as long as they fear death and prefer to engage in wishful thinking. Read the book titled "God is not Great" by Chris Hitchens to learn more reasons why RD is right on the money.

planet
01 September 2008 at 04:50

I meet a cousin of mine fairly regularly for a few beers. Each time we meet and usually after the third beer, we somehow get onto the debate about god and religion. He is a Roman Catholic, whereas I (kind of obvious really) am not.

By the way, we don't choose to be Atheists in the sense of say a migration away from the default school of thought; it may seem that way often but that's a false perspective, since we are so often brought up in a religious context by our parents, schools and communities and therefore appear to move away from it. To some extent it may be true, but my point is subtly different, we probably didn't ever really fully understand it all and decide, absolutely, yes this is for me and what I genuinely want to believe in. We were kids right. Of course some kids may say just that, but I wonder how much tolerance for freedom their parents allow ?. So, we shouldn't see "believing" and the natural/default way. We are not pre-programmed to believe from birth. We may be pre-programmed to have needs, wish for things, be susceptable to fear and share common vulnerabilities that lead us to take comfort in one thing or another. This is where religious movement can easily prey. What really happens is that we enter a world immersed in a society, culture and tradition that has cultivated a value system with an ability to condition us. If we are lucky, we will at some point open our eyes wide and see the bigger picture; the world for what it is; its people and their ways for what they are. Some of us may be courageous enough to begin to form our own reasoned opinions and challenge what we no longer wish to swallow. Hopefully, common sense is enough to afford us this freedom and liberty and also courage to help us stand tall, be counted and to be proud in not only what we don't believe in, but also in what we do.

Back to my story. When cousin asks [but what makes you so sure that God doesn't exist ?. Can you prove it ?. What makes science best placed to argue that he doesn't exist ?. You can't prove anything so there you go]. Well, ok then, there you go. What ?. There you go - what? - I usually retort ?. Does that mean that the believer is therefore in a stronger position ?. I believe that he seems to think so. Though I fail to see how it could be. If this were an argument between to scientific thinkers in a dispute about the average distance between Pluto and Charon, even then I'd say that the inability for one side to prove his answer is right more than the other is not reason for the other to claim victory regardless of his own ability to prove his answer is right. Using that example, I would therefore be mortified to concede that a non reasoned, evidenceless proposition lacking any sense of factual information (observation, test, measurement, reasoning, logic and compatibility with the universe as we "know" it) could be on an even keel, let alone be in a stronger position to expect general acceptance.

The fact that science may not be able to prove something (or even explain it well) does not qualify the superstitious corner to be endowed with the equal credibility and certainly not more.

misvelud
03 September 2008 at 22:26

Richard Dawkins is one of the greatest Hero of our time. He has a courage to raise his voice against crazy world of religious zealots, against stupidity and medieval obscurantism. We have to scream on every corner about the danger of religion(s). Religion(s) is the main obstacle to human progress, prosperity, peace and happiness. Down with all religions! Down with all propagandists of religions!

blitzz442
06 September 2008 at 21:27

Cark Packman wrote:

"On this very platform I see it as redundant to dismiss the religious when there is potentially a common enemy to fight. I've never criticised Dawkins for being an atheist, my goodness how could I? On the question of a deity then the moderately religious and atheists are going to disagree, much like pro- and anti-war elements of the Labour Party will disagree, but this doesn't exclude their unity on a more general level"

Carl, we all know that you don't believe in THAT God (one that specially created a 6,000 year old universe in which we are the center of) but you need to go one step further here - where is the evidence for believing in an omnipotent, benevolent creator that has a personal relatioship with us? If you say something like "I accept the findings of modern science, including evolution, but I believe that there is a vast intelligence at the bottom of it, that started it all" then you have an enormous claim that needs proving. What Dawkins and others have done is pointed out the unliklihood of such a being. Basically, if you accept the evidence of "cranes" (such as evolution by natural selection) to explain complex things, then it is strange to all of a sudden posit a massively complex being that itself needs no explanation!

If you say something like "the existence of God is not a scientific question", then on what basis do you believe in the first place? If "faith" is the answer, and if any aspect of your faith involves belief in miracles (such as the resurrection or the virgin birth) then how are you different from many fundamentalist religions in this respect? If the existence of God does turn out to be ultimately a question that is relevant to science and logic (I believe it is), then you of course cannot castigate scientists and philosophers for scrutinizing it.

You may say that I am putting words into your mouth with regard to your beliefs in God. If so, please define God for us. If He has specific attributes, then provide the basis for your knowledge of those attributes, and why other religions who ascribe different attributes are wrong. Or is He "something that cannot be defined", or "beyond our comprehension" , or other some such evasion?

Dawkins has admitted that, practically speaking, he will never be the star witness for science in the next Kansas or Dover trial. But that does not take away the validity of his criticism of the God Hypothesis. Labeling him and others like him with the super-ironic "fundamentalist" tag is an evasion from the central problem that all theists (fundies or moderates) share - where is the evidence for your deity?

ENGSanDiego
15 September 2008 at 18:56

Lots of well-meant, cogent discussion (and a little too much embarrassing illiteracy), but it all distills to this: No one can prove that God exists; no one can prove that he doesn't. But we can prove this: Religions are mere human fictions.

rcoles
18 September 2008 at 15:56

Dawkins is not a fundamentalist, a fundamentalist is unwilling even to consider changing their view even in the light of overwhelming evidence, should the day come, where someone is able to produce a well conducted test that demonstrates the existence of a god or any other fantastical entity, then I'm certain that Dawkins would accept it, just as I would,

This is much bigger than just creationism.

In championing the advancement of human societies collective knowledge through the scientific method, it is absolutely necessary to challenge all forms of dogma.

In a world that generally accepts "non-fundamentalist" irrationality, fundamentalist irrationality becomes just a matter of degrees ( I doubt the creationism camp, think of themselves as "fundamentalists", they

may think of other religions maybe ), The "new" atheists position in contrast, is absolutely clear.

entrails
20 September 2008 at 18:30

Dawkins can be considered a 'fundamentalist', in the pejorative sense with which it is often used in this debate, simply because he seems unable, or unwilling, to accept that much of his argument is based on a fundamental category mistake.

Dawkins appears wilfully determined that 'God'---should such a concept exist---must be observable by the 'scientific method'. As this 'God' appears not to be observable under the required rules 'God' cannot exist. If Dawkins is the one who sets the rules that define what 'Gad' can and cannot be/do then clearly 'God' has a problem, but this is patently, and logically, not the case.

If 'God' does exist it is without any need for Dawkins, or anyone else's permission, and certainly regardless of any 'rules' they may wish to set.

The plain truth is that Dawkins has no more evidence, let alone proof, for the non-existence of God, than believers do for the opposing belief. This is where Dawkins can be labelled a 'fundamentalist'---he is as determined about his rightness as those who oppose his view with the same degree of certainty in spite of the lack of 'scientific' evidence to unequivocally support either claim.

If there is a 'God' worthy of the title, a 'God' who is ultimately the source of being and purpose it is not impossible, and perhaps necessary, that such a 'God' exists outside the boundaries of the universe/multiverse/creation (however you like to describe it). That being the case, and depending on this 'God's' nature, it is also not impossible that the scientific method (at least at our present understanding of it), is a limited or even inappropriate means of 'knowing God', just as it is also a limited and generally inappropriate means of knowing and relating to your girl/boyfriend, and other relationships.

This is the category mistake: Dawkins wants 'God' to fit into a nice neat box of his own choosing---determined, and limited, by the rules of the scientific method. Not finding 'God' (or his understanding of 'God'), inside that box Dawkins finds 'God' non-existent and inadmissible to any rational being. Well, that's his choice, but it is worth asking why Dawkins and others find it so necessary that 'God' does not and must not exist, especially when they are willing to misuse the method they allegedly hold so dear to try and deal with something fundamentally beyond the method's scope and purpose.

Jim991
22 September 2008 at 04:15

Ajko, in The God Delusion, there is a whole chapter titled "Why There Almost Certainly is No God" where Dawkins admits that one can't guarantee that God doesn't exist. He understands quite clearly that the fact that you can't observe God with the scientific method doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. The point he was trying to make is that the fact that you can't prove that God doesn't exist isn't a good reason to believe that he does, as all beliefs one holds about the true nature of reality need to be based on evidence.

You say that Dawkins has no proof for the non-existence of God, yet you don't seem to understand that you can't prove the non-existence of anything. You can't prove that unicorns or fairies or vampires don't exist, because a lack of evidence for something doesn't mean that that thing doesn't exist. You can only prove that something exists, and until you do so, there is no reason to believe in its existence.

On Dawkins' "Scale of Atheism", which ranges from 1 (absolute certainty of God's existence) to 7 (absolute certainty of his non-existence), Dawkins rated himself as a 6. He did so because he understands that it is philosophically unwise to claim certainty about anything, as all it would take is some contrary empirical evidence to shatter your certainty. If that evidence ever turned up, as a scientist and a reasonable thinker, he would be obliged to change his views.

Dawkins' argument is not based on evidence that God doesn't exist, but rather on the PROBABILITY of God's non-existence based on the evidence we have.

entrails
22 September 2008 at 20:21

You are quite correct to point out 'that you can't prove the non-existence of anything', and I am aware of that fact. However going the other way---attempting to calculate the 'probability' of 'God' existing---is no better.

The 'probability' argument is entirely dependant on whatever 'God' the theorist has decided to calculate for. What kind of 'God' are we talking about? What criteria have been chosen, and why? This only emphasises the fact that empirical methods are probably ;-) the wrong tools for the job in hand.

If 'God is Love', as has been claimed, what evidence should we look for, and why should anyone feel at all compelled to believe it if that evidence should exist? 'Love' would never compel or attempt to manipulate or fool anyone into believing or loving in return.

When someone says to me 'I love you' I don't reach for a calculator, experimental log book, probability tables, or any other of the paraphernalia of the scientific method to try and establish the truth of the claim. Hopefully there will a some recognisable evidence that the words are true, but even such evidence is likely to be open to misinterpretation. In the end the assertion is largely reliant, at my end, on my willingness to accept it on trust; and on that foundation love actually stands a chance of growing and being reciprocated, or of being found to be a false claim. Of course even if I reject the claim, or am ignorant of it, does not stop the one saying 'I love you', from continuing to hold to it and make it true.

The question should probably be asked: 'What 'evidence' as to the existence of 'God' would actually satisfy the non-believer?

Perhaps it is more probable that if 'God' does exist, in any meaningful and worthwhile sense of the word, that it is up to us to make up our minds and act accordingly; in either case such a 'God' will remain true to 'God's' own nature.

Jim991
23 September 2008 at 03:26

Love, ajko, is actually much like religious belief in the fact that these two phenomenon are both not based on reason, but rather on trust, faith, and emotion. The choice to use the phenomenon of love as a parallel to questions about religion, is thus one that is guaranteed to back up the religious point of view.

The fact, however, is that when a person believes in God, even the most abstract, existential form of God imaginable, they are making claims about the fundamental nature of the universe in a way that people who fall in love are not.

The phenomenon of love is not a phenomenon which can be said to exist outside of the minds of humans and animals. It arises from certain chemical reactions in the brain which produce certain physiological and emotional responses in the body. Thus, by this fact alone, it is incapable of being observed in as objective and empirical a manner as physical phenomenon, and is not the best analogy for religious beliefs, which typically postulate a supreme being which is held to have existence external to the human mind.

A LOVERcan be shown to have external existence in a way that God can't, even if their love cannot be objectively verified and relies on a degree of trust. Trusting in the love of a lover is a question of faith (and evidence, if one has it), but trusting in the EXISTENCE of a lover is a matter of evidence alone.

God as a noun acts not as a "concept noun" like the phenomenon of love, but more along the lines of a "person noun", and as people and other beings have exitence in external reality, belief in them must be based on evidence. For if your beliefs about the nature of the universe are not based on evidence or the most precise reasoning, they cannot be verified to represent reality at all.

"The 'probability' argument is entirely dependant on whatever 'God' the theorist has decided to calculate for"..

This sentence does illustrate a good point in that no two people hold the same idea of what "God" is. Some see him as being an actual supreme being, some as a kind of animating "force" present in everything, some as merely a poetic device, etc. But it is precisely because the universe offers up no verifiable evidence for such a being (or whatever it is) that there are so many wildly different attitudes on God or gods. People around the world have pretty unanimous conceptions of what a "tree" is, or what a "rock" is, or what a "building" is, because these things exist in the external universe, and can be verified to exist through observation through the senses. If God were something which existed as a fundamental component of the universe and not as a mere phenomenon of conciousness like love is, then people would generally be in agreement on God and its nature.

entrails
23 September 2008 at 17:41

Thanks for your considered reply Jim991. I know I've not dealt with it completely, but here at least is some response.

Can we seriously say that 'love' and 'reason' are utterly unrelated. In the end 'reason' is simply the human activity of engaging with the facts/evidence as they appear to be. Underlying that engagement there is trust, faith, emotion, etc. I am not in any way suggesting that love and reason are the same, but that they are inextricably bound up in and dependant upon our human nature.

>>The fact, however, is that when a person believes in God, even the most abstract, existential form of God imaginable, they are making claims about the fundamental nature of the universe in a way that people who fall in love are not.>A LOVER can be shown to have external existence in a way that God can't, even if their love cannot be objectively verified and relies on a degree of trust. Trusting in the love of a lover is a question of faith (and evidence, if one has it), but trusting in the EXISTENCE of a lover is a matter of evidence alone.>God as a noun acts not as a "concept noun" like the phenomenon of love, but more along the lines of a "person noun", and as people and other beings have existence in external reality, belief in them must be based on evidence. For if your beliefs about the nature of the universe are not based on evidence or the most precise reasoning, they cannot be verified to represent reality at all.

blitzz442
24 September 2008 at 04:41

"RD, and others, choose to try and rubbish the idea of 'God'. Yet their own position, while having some internal logic---enough at least to suit them---is just as dependent on 'point of view' and 'choice of facts' as anyone else's. Religious people of course, behave just as foolishly, sometimes worse, but then 'religion' is just another aspect of human life: sometimes it is congruent with 'goodness', 'truth', and 'love', and sometimes the people involved are directly opposed to such things---just like those engaged in applying the scientific method to get to grips with the stuff of 'creation'."

Hey ajko, it is interesting that you call yourself a Christian, as opposed to a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Druid, or Gozer worshiper. And by the way, what flavor of Christianity? Evangelical protestant, Lutheran, Roman Catholic....there are hundreds.

By aligning with a particular flavor of a particular faith, you are explicitly claiming that your conception of God better reflects reality than all the other 1,000s of religions out there. They do not all say the same thing, and they often contradict each other. You are also assigning particular characteristics to God, which requires knowledge. HOW DID YOU ATTAIN THIS KNOWLEDGE? CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE IT OR REPRODUCE IT FOR THE REST OF US?

If you say that this knowledge is not accessible via the scientific method, then just how is it accessible? There is no "category mistake" here. For instance, the claim that Jesus rose bodily to heaven is a factual claim about a real event. This has nothing to do with "point of view" or "choice of facts"; either he violated the laws of nature or he did not! If you cannot supply proof of this why on Earth should any of us believe it? And if we carve out a special exception for this claim and protect it from scrutiny, why don't we do the same for the Muslim claim that Mohammed rose bodily to heaven and received the Koran? Or the Catholic claim that the piece of bread at communion is literally (not merely symbolically), the body of Christ? Or any other half-baked religious claim?

All Dawkins and others do is to take the stated claims about the existence and attributes of the mainstream Christian God and subject them to critical scrutiny. And if you have an alternative conception of God that is "more sophisticated" than the common (but widely believed) version that Dawkins attacks, then you still have to provide positive evidence for this particular God's existence.

Finally, you point out that making probability judgments about God is dependent upon how you define God. Well of course it is, and Dawkins could not have been clearer when he stated that his probability judgment was based on the traditional Christian God (all knowing, all powerful, personal, thought reading, prayer answering, etc.) It is obvious that such a being must be complex (in any reasonable sense of the word). Complex things are, by their very nature, statistically improbable. Therefore, any being as complex as the Christian God must be, BY DEFINITION, a very improbable thing indeed.

And just in case we are still on the "you cannot anymore prove that God does not exist than prove that he does" fallacy, as if it were a fifty-fifty proposition, does that apply to different Gods as well? For instance, is Thor just as probable as Yahweh?

One possible way out of the improbability argument is to simply say that "God is not complex", but again, it is hard to see how a very simple God could be responsible for the design of the Universe, keep simultaneous, up to the nanosecond personal tabs on every human on the planet, answer prayers, etc.

You can always retreat behind a vague, non-specific type of God or refuse to define God as an entity (to avoid these unsettling questions about his existence and characteristics). But then, it is not clear how you can align yourself with the Christian religion, which DOES recognize God as an entity and does recognize specific (and often contradictory) characteristics. I think you have here an irreconcilable dilemma – you cannot have it both ways.

blitzz442
24 September 2008 at 05:00

Factual correction:

I should have said that the claim is that "Mohammed ascended into heaven to visit with prophets who had gone before him", not to necessarily receive the Koran.

A minor thing but I don't want to misstate a position, even if I disagree with it.

entrails
24 September 2008 at 21:53

I'm afraid this assertion is merely that, an assertion: 'By aligning with a particular flavour of a particular faith, you are explicitly claiming that your conception of God better reflects reality than all the other 1,000s of religions out there'. Though given the way some people choose to speak about 'God' or 'evolution', or whatever it may be it's an understandable point of view. Whether or not I believe my view of God is the right/only/best one (take your pick), is irrelevant to the question of whether human beings can legitimately believe in the existence of God. I belong to a particular branch of Christian faith, as much by birth as by conviction (and I've explored a good few others over the years), but I don't happen to define myself by any of those sub-labels---there is no end to that!

' If you say that this knowledge is not accessible via the scientific method, then just how is it accessible? There is no "category mistake" here. For instance, the claim that Jesus rose bodily to heaven is a factual claim about a real event....'

I do not at all say that 'knowledge is not accessible via the scientific method' (where did you find that?). I certainly suggest that for knowing the reality of God, if there is a 'God', the 'scientific method' may be a particularly poor choice of tool. As far as I can see the category mistake remains for anyone who tries to treat the Creator as a creature of 'Creation'.

'...the claim that Jesus rose bodily to heaven is a factual claim about a real event. This has nothing to do with "point of view" or "choice of facts"; either he violated the laws of nature or he did not!' -- I have no disagreement with the first part, except that we can have no direct experience or evidence of what actually happened. We have eye witness accounts, but from an empirical point of view they are unhelpful and inconclusive. This in no way means that something, possibly something extraordinary, did not happen, but we are left either taking it at face value and believing it on the basis of the associated teaching, acts, and promises, or rejecting it for whatever reason we choose. We actually have no means of knowing whether what happened to Jesus was a violation of the 'laws of nature'. I would suggest probably not, especially given our limited understanding of what exactly constitute the totality of those 'laws'.

' All Dawkins and others do is to take the stated claims about the existence and attributes of the mainstream Christian God and subject them to critical scrutiny. And if you have an alternative conception of God that is "more sophisticated" than the common (but widely believed) version that Dawkins attacks, then you still have to provide positive evidence for this particular God's existence.'

So what you seem to be suggesting is that RD, and others, have set up a straw man which they are well able to knock down. The Christian Church, and other religions too, have certainly given them plenty of straw to stuff it with! The Church, as a human institution, is full of all the usual human failings, but that doesn't remove the fact that at it's heart lies teaching about humanity, the 'meaning of life', and the nature of God that has integrity and worth. Just because much of it falls outside the empiricist's box does not make it worthless or untrue.

Finally, you point out...

You can always retreat behind a vague, non-specific type of God or refuse to define God as an entity (to avoid these unsettling questions about his existence and characteristics). But then, it is not clear how you can align yourself with the Christian religion, which DOES recognize God as an entity and does recognize specific (and often contradictory) characteristics. I think you have here an irreconcilable dilemma – you cannot have it both ways.

As I have already said, if you want to understand the 'God' I believe in look to Jesus. I'm prepared to accept the possibility that my trust is misplaced, but I think I could do far worse than put my faith, my hope, and the foundation of my life in those hands---especially looking around at many of the alternatives. Having said that I have no doubt at all that if there is a 'God' that there are 'godly' people to be found amongst believers of almost all religions, and of none---but that is between 'God' and them, not for me to pass judgement over. Just as there are plenty who shout 'Lord, Lord' and are anything but godly. In any case I have never found my faith to preclude also trusting in the hard won understandings that the 'scientific method' has allowed us to achieve about, what I regard as, the 'Creation'.

RD is welcome to continue to jump up and down on his straw man, but I think he does himself a disservice; and he is certainly kidding himself if he really believes he will succeed in 'killing off God'. He's not the first to try, and I'm sure he won't be the last.

Fernando
01 October 2008 at 06:04

" ... so why is there need to slur them?"

Slur them...? In the U.S they constantly demean and mischaracterize atheists as villains, murderers, or worse. We constantly have to safeguard our children from their attempts to brainwash and indoctrinate them and that extends even into our publicly funded schools. Many of our public biology school teachers are fundamentally opposed to teaching evolution. And, if you do find a teacher that can teach a scientifically acceptable biology class that includes evolutionary theory, the teacher is reprimanded by bullying school boards members that try and pass creationism off as an equal. These bullies are not the fundamentalist followers of the religious right, they are from the majority religions who see themselves as still needing to push a religious agenda. The otherwise quiet little old lady, that yells at you in school meetings because you don't want a prayer said at the beginning of your child's homeroom class; or the garage mechanic who feels he needs to frighten you back to god; or the principal who won't let your child sit down for the pledge of allegiance or avoid saying "under god".

But, if we should try and stand up for your right to be free of this religious indoctrination, we are labeled as blasphemers, radical devil-worshipers, societal menaces, or even "evangelical atheists."

The only way to be free of oppression is to show people your willingness to state your argument, to defend your rights, to stop the bullying.

Richard Dawkins is as great a hero as they come. You're lucky to have such a man.

Fernando Aguilar

entrails
02 October 2008 at 19:17

" ...so why is there need to slur them?" -- why indeed; are we talking about atheists/evolutionists slurring religious believers/creationists, or religious believers/creationists slurring atheists/evolutionists?

Evolution is currently far and away the best theory we've got to explain the processes involved in the development of life on this planet; and we need good educated people to teach about it.

Surely the problem isn't Christian v. atheism or creationism v. evolutionism; it's bigotry, hatred, fear, and arrogance, etc. under what ever label such things manifest themselves that are the true enemies of understanding.

HalnMS
29 October 2008 at 21:14

As long as you tolerate the moderates, you'll have to endure the extremists. Are we saying that, irrationality is acceptable among a more genteel class.

nfalay
30 October 2008 at 20:57

Dawkins is what the atheists needed for a long time. A scientist and a leader. Otherwise so small and dispersed a minority as atheists could never voice themselves. However one thing should be watched over: As science is falsifiable, instead of turning evolution into a dogma, we should stress the point that ID cannot pass scientific criteria (Steinger) and religion has been already falsified through archeaology, history of religions, science and literary criticism.

American Atheist Veteran
05 November 2008 at 14:12

DR Dawkins is a mild Atheist kindly nudging the irrational to examine their false faith assumptions/magical thinking while warning us all how many religious concepts are violent & dangerous & hinders sciences. American Atheists applaud his work & encourage all to examine the growth of freethought eloquence all of which benefits our besieged planet by polluters, the rapacious & bellicose war profiteers. If you can believe a virgin has babies, are easily bribed with heaven & would inflict hell on others, you deserve more than the gentle humors of Professor Dawkins. His generous foundation is helping many in my country. Towards greater intelligence, abating global warming & a growing movement for sustainable if not symbiotic living, rebuff his critics & demand proof of their false allegations for alleged deities by any name, be they Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Jeebus or Ghost Holes.

readinggirl
09 November 2008 at 03:35

Attacking athiests, non-believers and non-theists is

exactly what the religious do to bully and coerce and

intimidate in order to gain power. Spirituality + politics

= religion. That is why it is so important for Professor

Dawkins to expose the hypocricy and irrationalilty of

not only fundamentalism but moderatism, which is

acquiesence and ignorant. As an American who lives

in a small town, I know first hand the abusive

behavior from "christians" who proclaim moral

superiority on anyone who is not a believer. Athiests

need a champion like Dawkins (and others) to expose

the abuse, and limit it, as it is divisive and destructive.

Reganee
09 November 2008 at 03:57

Amazing how just about anyone can run around preaching whatever their brand of religious myth, and that is fine, but when Dawkins speaks from his heart he becomes an extremist.

byron
14 November 2008 at 19:22

I do not see it as a shock that Dawkins "The God Delusion really marked the point where Dawkins transformed from the professor holding the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science to the celebrity fundamentalist atheist."

He has fallen into the same trap he accuses Christians.

The Trap is this separation of since and religion. Yes he is religious, it is called Humanism.

reason
15 November 2008 at 07:18

Dawkins is the most dangerous person in all of academia.

The fact that campuses are still giving Dr. Hate a soapbox is disgusting. He's a xenophobic elitist who's rabid intolerance under the guise of intellectual criticism is appalling.

He's a candy coated version of Dr Gerald Toben.

No matter what context one attempts to use, hate is still hate.

jamche
15 November 2008 at 15:49

Dawkins' book is brilliant! It reenforced ideas and

concerns I have been having and gave me arguments

to uphold my beliefs. I do believe it is radical thought,

which has a negative connotation. I always thought

people like Mary Daly and even Gloria Steinam did

more harm than good to their movement because of

the radical nature of their discourse. If we could be

smarter than the Christians and use rational thought in

a non-aggressive way, I think we will get the point

across more effectively.

ghrog
04 December 2008 at 00:18

Interesting comments and observations in this thread.

I have little to add except that "evangelical atheist" seems to be a strange pairing of words.

Be that as it may, if Richard Dawkins is an evangelical atheist, good for him! We need more like him, expecially here in the U.S. of A.

sombody
04 December 2008 at 00:36

I didn't see that in the show. It sounds as if there is a "divide and conquer" scheme going on here by Mr. Packman. One should never use rational thought to prove religious persons wrong - one should use rational thought to better understand the world.