Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

Jump to new
MS+Tradesim said:
How do you know that your perception of him being "more objective and rational than most religious people" is not biased by the fact he makes statements that you agree with and like?
Click to expand...

well I just wish someone would post what they believe to be a particular scientific flaw in one of his statements. (and he has made millions of them out there in youtube land)

Unless someone speaks to the detail, you could substitute either "Hitler" or "Mother Theresa" for Dawkins in most of the above generalised criticisms - it would be as meaningful :2twocents
 
2020hindsight said:
well I just wish someone would post what they believe to be a particular scientific flaw in one of his statements. (and he has made millions of them out there in youtube land)

Unless someone speaks to the detail, you could substitute either "Hitler" or "Mother Theresa" for Dawkins in most of the above generalised criticisms - it would be as meaningful :2twocents
Click to expand...

I'm not trained in biology so can't comment on his science. His philophical musings however, leave much to be desired. Rather than requesting others criticise his ideas in detail, why not put on an objector's hat for awhile and really start to rigorously analyse his worldview claims yourself to see if you can disprove them (Assuming you haven't already). I would say that if you are fair-minded and reasonable you will quickly see issues with much of his rantings about faith and religion. However, that also discloses my prejudice that a fair and reasonable person could agree with (much of) Dawkins' science without affirming his meta-narrative. The key is in distinguishing logic from science. Science is dependent on logic, not vice-versa.

Nuff said. I have trading to do.
 
MS+Tradesim said:
How do you know that your perception of him being "more objective and rational than most religious people" is not biased by the fact he makes statements that you agree with and like?
Click to expand...

I would venture that the reason Dawkins is perceived as "objective and rational" is because his arguments are backed up by science.

Science lends credence to any argument as it's based on repeatable tests and solid evidence, unfortunately, there is no evidence for god.

The problem with anyone taking a positive religious position is that there is as much evidence for god as there is evidence for Thor and Zeus.
Why do you discard them I wonder?

To sum it up with my favourite quote: "Yesterday's gods are today's myths".
 
JellySausage said:
there is no evidence for god.
Click to expand...

This is widely claimed. However, it is clear that it has no substantial meaning. What constitutes evidence for one person is discounted by the next. A fascinating discussion on internet infidels revealed that even in the event a person observed a phenomenon that they had previously stated could count as evidence that it might be simply the case that an alien civilization with technology so advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic had played on a trick on the person.

The claim "there is no evidence for God" is so subjective as to be meaningless and extreme skepticism cannot be defeated - it is circular and self-reinforcing.

And that really is my last post in this thread.
 
MS+Tradesim said:
The claim "there is no evidence for God" is so subjective as to be meaningless.
Click to expand...
why?
"there is no evidence for god" means that "there is no (tangible) evidence for god" surely. :confused:

now if you'd said :-
"the claim that splitting hairs doesn't advance an argument has merit"

then I'd agree with you.

or maybe I'll just sue my old high school english teacher - for the fact that I can't understand you tradesim - always knew she was hopeless.
;)

btw - I said before that I read what he says, listen to what he says , and I've yet to find anything outlandish or unreasonable - it just "sits with my philosophy" that's all.

What constitutes evidence for one person is discounted by the next. (??)

A fascinating discussion on internet infidels (??)

revealed that even in the event a person observed a phenomenon that they had previously stated could count as evidence that it might be simply the case that an alien civilization with technology so advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic had played on a trick on the person.
Click to expand...

1. I'm not trained in biology so can't comment on his science. -


2. ... Rather than requesting others criticise his ideas in detail, why not put on an objector's hat for awhile and really start to rigorously analyse his worldview claims yourself to see if you can disprove them (Assuming you haven't already).

3. I would say that if you are fair-minded and reasonable you will quickly see issues with much of his rantings about faith and religion.

4. However, that also discloses my prejudice that a fair and reasonable person could agree with (much of) Dawkins' science without affirming his meta-narrative. The key is in distinguishing logic from science. Science is dependent on logic, not vice-versa.
Click to expand...

1. ok I accept your admission on this score - hardly helps you in your right to criticise him surely

2. I already have - and I have no problems here.

3. Lemme get this straight - you cant fault him (specifically) - but I should quickly be able to find faults ??

4. meta narrative - whatever
 
2020hindsight said:
why?
"there is no evidence for god" means that "there is no (tangible) evidence for god" surely. :confused:

now if you'd said :-
"the claim that splitting hairs doesn't advance an argument has merit"

then I'd agree with you.
Click to expand...

Find two materialists who agree on what constitutes tangible evidence for "the existence of a god" and then ask them how they would respond if actually confronted with that evidence. In practice people disagree on just what constitutes tangible evidence for the existence of a god. One person means "if I pray and my amputated leg grows back I will believe there is a god". The next person will settle for nothing less than the eradication of war overnight. Someone else would require flaming letters in the sky saying "I exist". In each case what one person will accept as evidence will be discounted by the next skeptical person who requires a different standard of evidence.

To make the claim "there is no evidence for a god" really means something like "I have found no evidence to satisfy me" which is a very different thing to whether or not there actually is tangible evidence pointing to the existence of any god. On the internet infidels forum there was some fascinating discussion about this point which actually demonstrated that people mean very different things when they say "there is no evidence for a god". Most people came to the conclusion that even faced with evidence they had previously stated would be acceptable to them, they would still disbelieve because it would not actually prove a god existed but only that something weird had occurred. This is why the statement "there is no evidence for God" is really meaningless.

1. ok I accept your admission on this score - hardly helps you in your right to criticise him surely

2. I already have - and I have no problems here.

3. Lemme get this straight - you cant fault him (specifically) - but I should quickly be able to find faults ??

4. meta narrative - whatever
Click to expand...

On 1 and 3 you seem to be saying that because I'm not qualified to comment on his science that I'm not qualified to comment on his philosophy. I can fault him very specifically on the way he employs his beliefs (as opposed to his science) to discount other worldviews. That is very different to being unable to comment on the actual science he studies.

About 4....is it okay if Dawkins uses big words but I can't?

EDIT: And why the hell am I responding again?
 
Invisible forces are ever present and to caveman Kevin would be mysterious and unexplainable.Gravity, magnetism, electromagnetism, x-rays, radiation and static electricity are now understood and can be understood if you don`t understood.:D.The mysteries of this planet and beyond are being revealed in relation to humans growing intelligence (more intelligence, less wisdom lol).

So, it is with the revealing of these mysteries, caveman Kevin has realised that all is explainable and slowly but surely the imagination of past humans is being extinguished and a more `here and now` factual understanding of life is evolving.

Group comfort, hope and repentance are necessary for stability and order among humans and this is the vital role religion plays.Though the way religious systems are structured you either believe in the scriptures or you are out.
 
Wysiwyg said:
I
Group comfort, hope and repentance are necessary for stability and order among humans and this is the vital role religion plays.
Click to expand...
I'll go for the group comfort and hope bit, but wonder about the "repentance" part. And, sorry, but - although I readily accept that religion may provide some individuals with a sense of comfort or hope, I just can't see that religion has successfully provided society in general with much in the way of either hope or comfort.

I also reject the notion that to have a good moral compass we need to accept religion or belief in a God. We have gone over this in other threads.
Plenty of "religious" people have demonstrated completely amoral/immoral behaviour (sexually predatory priests etc.) and plenty of non-religious people have made great contributions to their fellow human beings.

If churches were really to display genuine records of morality, then I'd find it much easier to take them seriously.
NB As always the Salvos are an exception to the above criticism.
 
MS+Tradesim said:
Find two materialists who agree on what constitutes tangible evidence for "the existence of a god" and then ask them how they would respond if actually confronted with that evidence.

In practice people disagree on just what constitutes tangible evidence for the existence of a god. One person means "if I pray and my amputated leg grows back I will believe there is a god". The next person will settle for nothing less than the eradication of war overnight. Someone else would require flaming letters in the sky saying "I exist". In each case what one person will accept as evidence will be discounted by the next skeptical person who requires a different standard of evidence.

To make the claim "there is no evidence for a god" really means something like "I have found no evidence to satisfy me" which is a very different thing to whether or not there actually is tangible evidence pointing to the existence of any god.

On the internet infidels forum there was some fascinating discussion about this point which actually demonstrated that people mean very different things when they say "there is no evidence for a god". Most people came to the conclusion that even faced with evidence they had previously stated would be acceptable to them, they would still disbelieve because it would not actually prove a god existed but only that something weird had occurred. This is why the statement "there is no evidence for God" is really meaningless.

On 1 and 3 you seem to be saying that because I'm not qualified to comment on his science that I'm not qualified to comment on his philosophy. I can fault him very specifically on the way he employs his beliefs (as opposed to his science) to discount other worldviews. That is very different to being unable to comment on the actual science he studies.

About 4....is it okay if Dawkins uses big words but I can't?

EDIT: And why the hell am I responding again?
Click to expand...
why are you responding - ?
well maybe you still have to respond ...

with one single problem with one single comment he makes either scientific or philosophical ..

(I'm not saying there might not be a hint of conjecture there - just that I haven't detected it yet.!

any number of philosophers will tell you its all about faith. - there is no proof etc. I just don't understand why you would fight city hall on this.:confused:

anyway here's my (pantheistic) idea of god tradesim..
perhaps it qualifies as "meta-narration" - I'm not sure

blame Julia for talking about possums on another thread ;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I SAW GOD ONE DAY

I saw god one dawn as the first sunbeams smiled
he was crossing the sky like a golden haired child
some gull heading seaward , some “call of life” heard
and he looked for all worlds like a parenting bird

I saw god one morn, he was leading a band
as they juggled some leaf to a blade of warm sand
not a word did he preach, neither brimstone nor rant
but he looked I beseech you – the tiniest ant.

I saw god one noon , a magnificent creature
as he arched for a breach – as the ultimate teacher
which? feminine? nature? or hairy old male?
no my friend, god was (that day) a frolicking whale

I saw god one afternoon high in a tree
with his beady black pupils reflecting on me
then he sprang to a branch where a blossom looked on
and he looked for all worlds like a wild possum’s son

I saw god one eve-ning as twilight turned grey
just a spider and web that was blocking my way
they were radiant spiralling splendid and splayed
and I bowed my head there and together we prayed

I saw god one night in a magic black sky
with a zillion small lights where eternities pry
and a cascade of light years like cheese in a cage
and I know I’m a speck and my sparkplug must age

and I give my respect - and I smile at this page.
 
People,
watch the Zeitgeist documentary for the truth about religion! All religions go back to pagan mysticism, including christianity!

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

(be a bit patient with the long introduction music, but the information in the documentary is worth it! Will be the most enlightening knowledge you ever learn in your life!)
 
Julia said:
I'll go for the group comfort and hope bit, but wonder about the "repentance" part. And, sorry, but - although I readily accept that religion may provide some individuals with a sense of comfort or hope, I just can't see that religion has successfully provided society in general with much in the way of either hope or comfort.
Click to expand...

:)Firstly repentance ... if someone has wronged and are conscious to right their wrongs, then a medium needs to be present for the transition/change to take place.Either through a friend or self improvement group along with self analysis can the wrong doer (not j walkers lol) make a movement toward a better way.Belief in something `bigger` than yourself does wonders for small mind.Turning to passive religion is the last hope for some before doing something real stupid or worse, insanity.

I just can't see
Click to expand...

Correct
 
Wysiwyg said:
poem Cuts to the chase.
Click to expand...
speaking of chasing - you outta see my dog when she sees a possum - ;)

hopefully it's not a distraction - I would like to think that pantheism (and such beliefs) could coexist with nature (i.e. better than other religions that is) - and Dawkins, believe it or not, has strong ideas there as well (as he does on most important moral questions ;)).

We can speculate about HYPOTHETICAL decrease in some human gene pool - but .... as the so-called and self-styled Lords of Creation ... shouldn't we be concerned about reality as well?

what about the very real and immediately current and urgent problem of what is happening now today with the rest of nature's species?. I mean an optimist would conclude that we might end up with about 10% of current species anyway. But then there's the 'frailty' we are gonna engender in them, while we selfishly smash down their habitats. Many TV docos and presumably youtubes out there. this question is here - now- today!

sorry to preach m8 - i realise in your case it's preaching to the converted :eek:

PS thought for the day ( just flashed through my grey matter)

ask not "what would Jesus have done?"
ask instead ..... "what would Steve Irwin have done" ;)
Click to expand...
 
m8 - in 50 years, they'll have discovered how to make you compost-proof for at least another 100 lol.

Then again , maybe compost would have more fun by then lol
 
Off the subject again

But why do religions have an afterlife as a central tenement (?) to their faith?
I believe in a God of sorts ( it might be a higher type of mathmatics or physics for all I know) but I'm a lot more skeptical about an afterlife.?

And on the reducing gene pool... why aren't we making artificial reefs in all our oceans...it seems a better idea than burying all our Junk?

Is it to late to make up a poll to see who thinks religion is a bad thing?
 
kgee said:
Off the subject again

But why do religions have an afterlife as a central tenement (?) to their faith?
Click to expand...
If you are good (ie, do as we say) you go to Heaven, if you are bad, you go to Hell. Manipulation and control. People are generally afraid of dying, so what better way of influencing them by making up a story about St Peter at the Pearly Gates, or an oasis filled with 200 virgins. Even Hinduism/Buddhism use reincarnation as a tool of manipulation. If you develop good Karma you come back as a superiour whatever. So, be good now, or you will be punished in the afterlife. Animism is quite interesting in their beliefs but mostly link back to the same thing. Be good now, or you will be punished.

Control, through a complete lack of rational reasoning.
 
Off the track a bit but, know of your chatterbox.Remove all distractions and (know it).Since the chatterbox or self talk can`t be sensed (sight, sound, smell, taste and touch) then it can only be known by the individual.These eternal tapes are playing from birth to death and even the yogis have to eliminate all human interference to come close to a perception of self control .

Karma would be the most missused word to describe events.Karma is a human word which has human conditions, generally revenge (or the grudger as 2020 pointed out).
 
wys - not sure of the link between karma and revenge - but I like the "listen to the tapes" - around here there are usually 5 going at one time ;)

But speaking of Buddhism ( since you mention it lol)

2020:-I would like to think that pantheism (and such beliefs) could coexist with nature (i.e. better than other religions that is) - and Dawkins, believe it or not, has strong ideas there as well (as he does on most important moral questions
Click to expand...

What I meant to say was that - I would like to think that pantheism (and such beliefs) could coexist with nature AND HUMAN NATURE - AND NOT BRING OUT ANY WARLIKE STUFF (i.e. better than other religions that is).

And equally I would have to say that some people go about their daily tasks , go missing on Sunday for an hour or so to attend church, and are not the slightest bit interested in preaching. Absolutely no problem of course.

Just when the church(es) meddle in
a) politics
b) sex education, banning condoms in particular, triggering aids etc (DIRECT responsibility)
they should be told to .. stay out of it ... imo.

No need to extend the pure speculation imore than necessary. And of course on absolutely no grounds should they criticize another church from their own pulpit - in fact under no grounds should they criticize anybody surely . They must accept that the other church has every right to exist. Maybe then they'd avoid the criticism about starting fights and wars and stuff.

PS Personally I would have no problem with such a church - chugging along barely heard - (ideal) Buddhism the classic example - Probably (possibly?) Dawkins would still find (intellectual) fault with Buddhism, but no way would I . :2twocents

(I'll have to check out that last statement , as I run the risk of misquoting him - and he has already been misquoted sufficiently on this thread ;))
 
2020hindsight said:
And of course on absolutely no grounds should they criticize another church from their own pulpit - in fact under no grounds should they criticize anybody surely . They must accept that the other church has every right to exist. Maybe then they'd avoid the criticism about starting fights and wars and stuff.
Click to expand...

Maybe the church of Dawkins could begin to practise that very thing... :rolleyes:

What amazes me 2020 is the very thing that you and I dislike about some churches... i.e. I am right and everyone else is wrong... is what Dawkins himself is doing!

I mean... after all Dawkins is just a 21st century philosopher using at very best 10% of his brain power... His logic makes sense to our 21st century brains.

If I permit me to indulge in some future gazing for a second or two:
What are the odds that in a few hundred years, the church of Dawkins followers won't be hoodwinked into starting a war with the 'believers'? Don't laugh, I want you to seriously consider this?

Is it possible? Is it fair to blame Dawkins for that...?

My answer would be Yes, it is possible, and NO, it would not be Dawkin's fault... Tho his writings, which are of a similar tone to most evangelical writers... i.e. I speak the truth, and anyone of can't see it, is obviously a grade A clown... could, very easily, in the hands of a overzealous disciples with a fired up following... lead to war.

Anyway... end of my musings...


In the end, what I would like to know 2020, is

1)what does Dawkins say about rampant consumerism and materialism cause we all know (i presume we all know)... that this has the potential to destroy not humans, but the planet we live on...

2)And what does he say one rampant capitalism and greed... one of the major root causes of many of the wars he speaks of?

Most of the great religions devote a significant portion of their teaching to the above two topics... tho alas, not many of the followers actually follow them....
 
Top