The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

Plotinus · Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:24 am Post subject:

Thanks for this clarification, admin. It touches base with many things that I saw in his documentary, although, as I said earlier, I haven't read the book.

Let me emphasize something. Most of us think of Richard Dawkins as attacking religion. Largely I think we are correct to perceive him this way. However, you have introduced an important term into the discussion--pseudoscience. Although Dawkins criticizes belief in God and religion as a whole, his specific criticisms are directed at pseudoscience, as you correctly point out. He has a valuable role to play in doing so. But it seems to me that he does not distinguish between pseudoscience and religion. They are both superstition (to him).

However, there is a personal dimension to all this. Another example of a biologist who was vehemently opposed to religion was Francis Crick. Crick famously resigned his fellowship at Churchill College Cambirdge because they wanted to build a multifaith/nondenominational chapel there. For Crick the issue was personal and deeply felt. Many biologists feel personally threatened by the pseudoscience that often accompanies religion because so much of it is pseudobiological. It is an us-or them mentality.
_________________
One would never discover the limits of soul, should one traverse every road -- so deep a measure does it possess.

Heraclitus, fragment 45, quoted in Diogenes Laertius 9.7.

Plotinus · Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:38 pm Post subject:

At present I am reading a book called Challenging Nature by Lee Silver. Silver is a top notch biologist, like Dawkins. The book explores the relationship between science and spirituality with slightly more sympathy towards spirituality than Dawkins has. Like Dawkins, Silver considers spirituality to be irrational and science to be rational. Unlike Dawkins, he thinks that spirituality appeals to us emotionally and will not disappear with the advance of science. That's only a small part of his argument which is about the clash with religion over biotechnology.

Silver tells a good joke. An old but good one.

A boy is raised in a secular atheistic Jewish family, but is sent to a Christian school called the Holy Trinity because "they don't teach religion anyway, and it's a good school." One day the boy comes home and tells his father, "Guess what? I found out what the Trinity is. It is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."

His father looks upset, and takes him aside. "Son," he says. "I'm only gonna say this once so I want you to listen carefully and remember what I say. We're Jewish. Don't you forget that. There's only one God and we don't believe in Him!"
_________________
One would never discover the limits of soul, should one traverse every road -- so deep a measure does it possess.

Heraclitus, fragment 45, quoted in Diogenes Laertius 9.7.

Plotinus · Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:41 pm Post subject:

Finally, people looking for a more sympathetic book on the relation between biology and spirituality might try reading Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller.
_________________
One would never discover the limits of soul, should one traverse every road -- so deep a measure does it possess.

Heraclitus, fragment 45, quoted in Diogenes Laertius 9.7.

atoz · Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject:

admin · Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject:

I think something is being missed here. Dawkins is not doing this just on his own, his JOB is to inform the public on science. That's part of his official position.

And yes, his main arguments are against religion getting in the way of science. Or more appropriately, religion promoting "pseudoscience".

In that respect I think his work is excellent - and would recommend his work be read by Christians. He brings up points that are foolish to brush under the carpet.

If you think Dawkins is just an "atheist thing" I would say you are wrong. I have heard it said from mainline protestant pulpits on Sunday morning that we need to address the issues he brings up. Yes, he's being used as a reference from sermon pulpits by respected theologians. (OK, I made that a little more dramatic for effect, but just to let you know it's out there in full swing. This is not a side niche movement he's started).
_________________
Cybermonsters (Most Beloved Admin)

Favorite Octopus Video! - My Site - Studio
Have a question or need help with your account? E-mail: forum @ askland.net

Plotinus · Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:15 am Post subject:

The debunking of pseudoscience is important. Those who preach from the pulpit that religion should divest itself of pseudoscience are doing religion a favour in my opinion.

There are other people who I know who have taken on the job of debunking pseudoscience and charlatans. One of the best examples is Persi Diaconis, who is well known to readers to Scientific American during the Martin Gardner years. Persi is an excellent mathematician who has also trained as a magician. He is a better role model, in my opinion, than RD.

However, I am going to take my basic argument one step further here. I think that Richard Dawkin's arguments for atheism get in the way of the debunking of pseudoscience. By conflating pseudoscience and theism, Dawkins has failed to nuance the issue in a way that will be acceptable to the majority. If one says to someone "Give up both pseudoscience and God--they are the result of unclear thinking" then the other person, who might wish to keep God will not give up pseudoscience, in all probability.

It is better to say "I don't believe in God or pseudoscience. Science proves the latter is wrong and has no use (like Laplace) for the former. So at least give up pseudoscience."

To the extent that Dawkins exposes charlatans and frauds--people who collect money from desperate people with serious illness--we should stand up and applaud. Unfortunately, he needs to clean up his message.
_________________
One would never discover the limits of soul, should one traverse every road -- so deep a measure does it possess.

Heraclitus, fragment 45, quoted in Diogenes Laertius 9.7.

atoz · Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:15 am Post subject:

And the Hatred and Disrespect that really get in RD's way make even worse his method of debunking pseudoscience, Plo.

RD is cleaning up charlatans who make money off of dupes while RD is himself making money off of charlatans who make money off of dupes....especially when RD cd be donating all book-sale profits to some worthy group since RD is being bankrolled by the cofounder of Microsoft.

with Love and R for dupers, dupees and redupers,
atoz
_________________
"The person who discovered The Law of Love
was a far greater scientist than any of our modern scientists."
MKGANDHI
“Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.”
Albert Einstein
“Love sought is good, but given unsought is better.”
William Shakespeare, 12th Night

admin · Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject:

I don't know guys. I would challenge you to read the God Delusion in full and then comment. It is a pretty in-depth work, covers many areas with a lot of info.
_________________
Cybermonsters (Most Beloved Admin)

Favorite Octopus Video! - My Site - Studio
Have a question or need help with your account? E-mail: forum @ askland.net

Plotinus · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:53 am Post subject:

Ana · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:14 am Post subject:

atoz · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:33 am Post subject:

Hi Admin,

Based on your bringing it to our attenton,
I went to Barnes & Nobles, smile
and scanned or preceed[pray-seed/precis-ied] that book: and took notes!smile

1. A Deeply Religious NonBeliever.
A. Deserved Respect.
B. Undeserved Respect.

2. The God Hypothesis.

3. Arguments for God's Existence.

4. Why There is almost certainly no God.

5. The Roots of Religion: Why Are We Good?

6. The Roots of Morality.

7. The Good Book and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist.

8. What's wrong with Religion? Why Be So Hostile?

9. Childhood Abuse and the Escape from Religion.

10. A Much Needed Gap.

Index:
Disrespect: Nothing, though Chapter 1.
Hate: Nothing on Hate.
Love: Irrational Love, 214-217.
Respect: Nothing on Respect even though Chapter 1.

RD quoted TJ's letter to TJ's nephew Peter Carr on page 64.

Chapter 1 is key:
an expose on RD's own mindset:
RD admits that he is a prejudiced and predispositioned viewer and witness of the evidence before the court of private and public opinion, who should therefore have self-recused or been recused by publisher.

Chapter 4 means:
There is almost certainly a God.

Chapter 8 is a self-reflection.

Chapter 9 is escape to the Religion of No Religion.

What really stood out to you that you loved other than he writes well?

with Love and Respect,
atoz
_________________
"The person who discovered The Law of Love
was a far greater scientist than any of our modern scientists."
MKGANDHI
“Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.”
Albert Einstein
“Love sought is good, but given unsought is better.”
William Shakespeare, 12th Night

Plotinus · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:29 am Post subject:

Plotinus · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:53 pm Post subject:

Let me choose a typical passage from Richard Dawkins' book to explain my frustration with Dawkins' arguments.

atoz · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject:

Ana · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:57 pm Post subject: