• In total there are 5 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

The 7 Deadly Sins of Richard Dawkins - a Philosopher's perspective

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: The 7 Deadly Sins of Richard Dawkins - a Philosopher's perspective

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Who says the universe came from nothing? Applied to the big bang theory, it's merely an assumption. The theory does not say anything about what came before, because it can't.
This sounds reasonable,but what realistically could come before the beginning of space,time,energy and matter? But you know,I think Starhwe is right here.It's just a continous groundhog day of familiar arguments.
I hear the voice of "reason"from some on the Sorcerer thread. Sounds familiar;progressive science versus superstitious beilef in God.
Everybody knows, that atheism had nothing at all to do with the murderous horrors of the Soviet Union.Funny thing,the progressive science versus religious superstition saying,was a mantra there too.This does not mean I agree with what happened to that man accused of sorcery. http://www.globalmuseumoncommunism.org/ ... n_religion Iv'e already said people do evil whether religious or otherwise. Ideas and beliefs play a part. I don't share the paranoia of the writer of the museum article or his politics.I'm pointing to the historical realities.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory her, but continuosly see trotted out,including from Richard Dawkins, a caricature of the God of the bible as a genocidal maniac etc. I can present some sort of defence of the Old Testament record,but is there any point?
Last edited by Flann 5 on Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The 7 Deadly Sins of Richard Dawkins - a Philosopher's perspective

Unread post

Flann wrote:This sounds reasonable,but what realistically could come before the beginning of space,time,energy and matter?
Let's say we never arrive at an answer. Why would you think god is a justified answer in the absence of any other answer? On the other hand, what if the universe did not have a 'before'? Did you read my link to the big bounce hypothesis?
Flann wrote:But you know,I think Starhwe is right here.It's just a continous groundhog day of familiar arguments.
He is right. But it's not just one side that's guilty. I haven't seen new reasoning for the existence of god in many years. Just the same stuff, reworded and reapplied.
Flann wrote:I'm not trying to be inflammatory her, but continuosly see trotted out,including from Richard Dawkins, a caricature of the God of the bible as a genocidal maniac etc. I can present some sort of defence of the Old Testament record,but is there any point?
There's some truth to the impression of a genocidal maniac god. The defense you'd have is that in order to save some, god had to kill many. Or that those he killed were only pure evil. And that he works in mysterious ways. I find the defenses contrived, where the text of the old testament is merely god in man's image. From that perspective, the writings all fit without contrived defenses.
ant wrote:I'm sorry you don't appreciate the pimp metaphor I made.
You make an entire post attacking Robert. You're calling the kettle black here ant, focus on the arguments and let go of the ad hominems. They only serve to inflame.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: The 7 Deadly Sins of Richard Dawkins - a Philosopher's perspective

Unread post

Hi Interbane,
First I think I should apologise for my last post. I had just read through the Sorcery thread and was reacting to some things I read there, with annoyance. I don't think atheism necessarily leads to evil actions any more than belief in God does.Some beliefs certainly can, whether of religious suicide bombers or those who regard religious belief as something to be exterminated.It's tragic history.
I apologise to all atheists for any suggestion of putting them in the same category as Stalin or the rest.
As for your arguments,Interbane, that's for another day.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: The 7 Deadly Sins of Richard Dawkins - a Philosopher's perspective

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote: I'm not trying to be inflammatory her, but continuosly see trotted out,including from Richard Dawkins, a caricature of the God of the bible as a genocidal maniac etc. I can present some sort of defence of the Old Testament record,but is there any point?
There might be some point to it, but I don't know what your expectations would be. This won't seem to you a more reasonable position, but I don't get riled over God in the OT because that would be like getting really worked up about a character in a book. God commanding the slaughter of the Canaanites sounds awful, but since there is a lack of evidence that such a genocide happened in history, I don't feel outrage.

"Caricature" shares its origin with "character," and God is just that in the OT, but he is a character who is written about at different times and by different people. Naturally, he would have different looks under these circumstances, so I agree that God is more than a genocidally-inclined ruler in the OT. What I have difficulty believing is that somehow the loving and warring Gods harmonize. It's especially difficult to reconcile the OT and NT Gods. Christianity, I think, asks to be an exception from the workings of normal history, so that this God who was conceived before 1000 BCE undergoes no changes as he is worshiped and written about during the next millenium. It's all the same, unchanging God. I realize it has to be this way for Christians, or the idea of a God who changes would have to be introduced, which would mean that he is less than all-knowing and perfect. If you see God as a human creation, of course he does change over time.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The 7 Deadly Sins of Richard Dawkins - a Philosopher's perspective

Unread post

First I think I should apologise for my last post. I had just read through the Sorcery thread and was reacting to some things I read there, with annoyance. I don't think atheism necessarily leads to evil actions any more than belief in God does.
People can be good, and people can be evil. With or without god.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: The 7 Deadly Sins of Richard Dawkins - a Philosopher's perspective

Unread post

DWill wrote:Christianity, I think, asks to be an exception from the workings of normal history, so that this God who was conceived before 1000 BCE undergoes no changes as he is worshiped and written about during the next millenium. It's all the same, unchanging God. I realize it has to be this way for Christians, or the idea of a God who changes would have to be introduced, which would mean that he is less than all-knowing and perfect. If you see God as a human creation, of course he does change over time.
I can anticipate the response to this. God is unchanging. However, throughout history our conception of this God has evolved to a position closer to what God actually is. I just solved your conundrum, DWill. This would account for the many different religions of the world, all sort of groping towards the real God who remains mostly mysterious and unknowable except for those who have a "relationship" with him.

We've discussed the following passage from Robert Wright's book, The Evolution of God. Wright suggests that throughout history the conception of God has moved closer and closer to plausibility. Obviously we must renegotiate our conception of God because times do change. The OT God is very much out of sync with the times and so must evolve.
Wright wrote:There have been many such unsettling (from religion’s point of view) discoveries since then, but always some notion of the divine has survived the encounter with science. The notion has had to change, but that’s no indictment of religion. After all, science has changed relentlessly, revising if not discarding old theories, and none of us think of that as an indictment of science. On the contrary, we think this ongoing adaptation is carrying science closer to the truth. Maybe the same thing is happening to religion. Maybe, in the end, a mercilessly scientific account of our predicament—such as the account that got me denounced from the pulpit of my mother’s church—is actually compatible with a truly religious worldview, and is part of the process that refines a religious worldview, moving it closer to truth.
Until believers get at the truth, it seems to me they must increasingly focus on the more speculative areas of science—the Big Bang, quantum physics, etc. This God must necessarily reside in the gap between scientific knowledge and the unknown. Dexter, who hasn't been around for a while (unfortunately), once asked the question about the human soul with regard to the evolution of humans. Knowing now that our categorization of species is very arbitrary and that the evolution of all species occurs so slowly and gradually that there never really was a "first human." So Dexter asked, at what point did God put a soul into humans? The fact is, our knowledge of biology has overgrown primitive conceptions of reality. Adam and Eve is a fable that simply doesn't mesh with modern science. Evolution itself poses some real problems for some people and, so, it becomes necessary to make a choice between fable and fact. Some people choose the fable at which point the rationalizations begin.
Last edited by geo on Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: The 7 Deadly Sins of Richard Dawkins - a Philosopher's perspective

Unread post

I looked at the "big bounce" link.I don't pretend to understand the equations of mathematical physicists but I notice Alexander Valentin thinks it's a non-starter and gives his reasons for this.He also likes the multiverse notion but makes no claims of scientific evidence for it. The link on the multiverse provided an article on the supposed discovery of "dark flow".It went on to say that it was refuted by the Planck data,but nevertheless the story of it's 'discovery' got into a couple of British national papers.
Of course, I believe God exists outside of time,space and matter and incidentally does not conform to pantheism. As far as talk of scientific evidence and proofs go,we can say our universe exists and it had a beginning. Most physicists who accept this, see the inevitable logical implications of this from a naturalistic viewpoint, and are working hard on squaring the circle.This involves,for some, redefining 'nothing' and farce usually follows.
The multiverse hypothesis alleviates the glaring problem of probabability and fine tuning and may be psychologically attractive for those who see the clear implications of our Universe having a beginning.Stephen Hawking seems to say that the law of gravity provides an explanation. Here's a short interview with Philosopher Richard Swinburne on;Are the laws of nature fundamental? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBI3EsCqaCk Sorry the link doesn't work.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The 7 Deadly Sins of Richard Dawkins - a Philosopher's perspective

Unread post

I do believe that God as Creator of the universe is a philosophical hypothesis. We can only reason our way to a rational belief that each person reconciles in his/her own way.

What most atheists erroneously believe is that the various arguments for the existence of God are an attempt to convert the non believer. That, in my opinion, is wrong. The arguments are designed to affirm the relationship between faith and reason for the believer. It is an intellectually honest, rational, and vigorous exercise. If you haven't read Mortimer Adler, I highly recommend his work.

When considering Pascal’s Wager, who many atheists believe is an argument designed to convince a non believe, the reasoning is that essentially you have nothing to lose if you believe in the existence of an afterlife. The non believer does not need to jump ship but should not believe there is any advantage to NON belief because he will be dead better than the believer. He will be just as dead. He will not be dead in some superior way
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The 7 Deadly Sins of Richard Dawkins - a Philosopher's perspective

Unread post

For Richard Dawkins, the theory of evolution is much more than a scientific theory, it is a worldview. Atheists like Robert digest these "scientific worldviews' and turn them into arguments that actually belong to philosophy. Science has become an all-knowing monolith.

How does the theory of evolution hep me to be a better person? How does it help to prevent war? How does it help my interpersonal relationships?

How does Richard Dawkins address the atrocities of Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler?
He doesn't.
Does he believe a secular version of these evil monsters would not have murder millions of people?
Last edited by ant on Sat Nov 02, 2013 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: The 7 Deadly Sins of Richard Dawkins - a Philosopher's perspective

Unread post

Yeah!

I too share Ant's disappointment with science and its "answers".

And why doesn't Einstein's theory of general relativity teach us how to live in peace with our brother? Why didn't Maxwell give us the definitive treatment on economics when he brought electricity and magnetism under the same umbrella?

How come Feynman Diagrams don't teach us the meaning of Christmas? Why doesn't Laplace's perturbation theory teach us what we should say in awkward elevator rides? How come Galileo's ideas about inertia don't explain true love?

Why didn't Isaac Newton's theory of gravity also produce the BEST recipe for Gravy? That should have been easy! Gravity and Gravy are only two letters off!
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”