What's Wrong With Richard Dawkins?

[CFLarsen]

There are similarities and differences, it depends on which aspects of the beliefs you want to look at. Is there a point to this question?

Can you tell me the differences, yes or no?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No worries. Just remember one thing: no scientific theory can ever be proved true.

Again with your single definitions for words with multiple meanings. Tsk tsk, you'd think you could have learned this with a single example.

Truth

 

[articulett]

I just love arthwollipots article in the repository on the sort of stereotyped view of Dawkins and atheists that is being promoted... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3699290#post3699290

I guess the "apologists" (whether actual atheists or not) remind me of the authors of the story arth discussed in the OP. I feel like Science and Dawkins and the truth are so clear-- it doesn't need to obfuscate or hide behind semantics or silly stories or false analogies or straw man definitions of your opponent.

Arth and Dawkins and the majority on this forum come across so much more eloquently, humorously, and honestly than the Dawkins' critics to me. I can never find their point and their characterization of him seems so much more fitting of them. They see what isn't there and re-explain him and what he says through their own delusional viewpoint. I can't help but think that semantics and ad homs and spin is all they have to support the delusion as told in the story of the Christian and Atheist Professor.

Biblical parables and goofy stories like this serve for "real truth" and those who speak the actual truth are demonized by the bigoted, biased, dishonest, blinded, and stupid? How do you fix that? At least Dawkins tries. And he gets a lot of this nuttery whining in return. Those who think Dawkins is strident-- read Herzy and Luzz and ask yourself who you would rather be like...? who do you trust more? Who is doing more to further useful true knowledge?

 

[Herzblut]

Again with your single definitions for words with multiple meanings. Tsk tsk, you'd think you could have learned this with a single example.

Truth

If this is your personal faith and it makes you feel happy, who am I to critizise?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... who am I to critizise?

Clearly you are no match for me. Who else you might be I daresay is irrelevant.

 

[Lonewulf]

What is the difference between a deist god, and an imaginary friend who always listens to you, and is always there for you?

For one, the imaginary friend listens to you and is always there for you. The deist god, in most definitions of the term, isn't anywhere near you; he made the Universe, and then went off to do other stuff. He isn't around to listen to you or be there for you at all.

 

[Darat]

Several posts moved to AAH. Remember attack the arguments not the person.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[westprog]

For one, the imaginary friend listens to you and is always there for you. The deist god, in most definitions of the term, isn't anywhere near you; he made the Universe, and then went off to do other stuff. He isn't around to listen to you or be there for you at all.

As is often the case, I don't recognise this definition. The God who made the universe but who is then inaccessible sounds like some obscure mediaeval heresy. It doesn't relate to any kind of faith that I'm familiar with.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes.

So, what are the differences between a deist god, and an imaginary friend who always listens to you, and is always there for you?

 

[Soapy Sam]

The difference is shared belief, or pretence thereof. Darwinism is about the fit of creatures with their environment. The human environment is mostly other humans. The meme environment is other human beliefs.
A god is a shared imaginary friend.

Some people have simple belief sharing turned off by default.

 

[Faithkills]

If this is your personal faith and it makes you feel happy, who am I to critizise?

Herz, buddy. Seriously man, this hasn't played here for some time.

The tautology that a scientific theory can't be proved with perfect certainty is recognized by the word itself: 'theory'. However this does not, in any way make it less reasonable to believe things which have systematically obtained evidence in their favor and no counterexamples over things which no evidence has been found and have logical inconsistencies.

Hammering this idea that is full of fail makes you look either disingenuous or incapable of comprehension. I hope you aren't the first and have a hard time believe you are the latter.

 

[Herzblut]

Herz, buddy. Seriously man, this hasn't played here for some time.

The tautology that a scientific theory can't be proved with perfect certainty is recognized by the word itself: 'theory'. However this does not, in any way make it less reasonable to believe things which have systematically obtained evidence in their favor and no counterexamples over things which no evidence has been found and have logical inconsistencies.

There's not much I can make up against what you say. If it comes to gaining empirical knowledge, science is the way to do it. Period.

What has come into my mind just recently: scientific theories are at least falsifiable, faith isn't even that. But I think, as you know, that this does not disqualify faith. It serves other needs.

 

[CFLarsen]

For one, the imaginary friend listens to you and is always there for you. The deist god, in most definitions of the term, isn't anywhere near you; he made the Universe, and then went off to do other stuff. He isn't around to listen to you or be there for you at all.

No, that's the whole idea of the deist god: That he is always there for you and listens to you. Regardless of whether he makes his presence known or not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, what are the differences between a deist god, and an imaginary friend who always listens to you, and is always there for you?

By definition, you would have no way of knowing that a deist god existed.

By definition, your imaginary friend would actually be you and you would know that assuming you are not referring to a delusion.

 

[Faithkills]

There's not much I can make up against what you say. If it comes to gaining empirical knowledge, science is the way to do it. Period.

Are you suggesting that you credit another sort of knowledge? Trust a priori knowledge when choosing equities and stocks to buy do you?

What has come into my mind just recently: scientific theories are at least falsifiable, faith isn't even that.

Well hallelujah and PTL!

But I think, as you know, that this does not disqualify faith. It serves other needs.

It disqualifies faith as knowledge. It doesn't disqualify faith as being an observable social dynamic. And the nature of those needs is a valid discussion as is the benefit versus harm of that dynamic.

The main problem as I see it is the perfection of the tool to the use of manipulating people and societies. The western tradition of separation of church and state has insulated us from the excesses of faith to an extent. This tradition evolved precisely because religion, and the faith that makes it possible, almost uniformly were used for harm.

However in the US there is an active attempt to undermine this (ID, creationism, et al) and this is what causes a great deal of concern. Further we have clear current examples of unchecked religion causing vast harm. It becomes hard to justify the occasional benign (tho almost never altruistic) uses to which faith is put in the face of this harm. At least one entire continent is a human nightmare in progress.

I do see the benign, but even that is often heavy handed, ill considered, and comes with a hefty helping of proselytism. I live on the cusp of a blighted neighborhood in Post-K New Orleans. I regularly see church groups rebuilding houses. But these are houses in neighborhoods which no one will buy a house, so they sit vacant, and further depress the housing market. These groups also drive off the legitimate contractors whom the city needs. The charity will go away, but we need businesses to exist here to have long term economic viability. But who will pay someone when a church group will do the work for free?

At the time of the emergency it cannot be argued religious groups helped people. (and so did secular groups) But now I just wish they would go away

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, that's the whole idea of the deist god: That he is always there for you and listens to you. Regardless of whether he makes his presence known or not.

In this context, you left off the god part. Imaginary friends are not usually thought of as creating the Universe. And, like I said, if you know it is an imaginary friend, you also know it is imaginary. The deist god is not thought of as just some imaginary being.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I notice PZ Myers has a similar stance against the Discovery Institute as Dawkins. Would those of you criticizing Dawkins put Myers in the same category?

For example, see these blog entries.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For those of you who think we just need to be nice to believers, this video from the Discovery Institute might be of interest to you.

Proselytizing for Darwin's God in the Classroom
If you don't have 25 minutes to waste you can get most of the gist of it from watching the last 5 minutes. You can definitely skip the first 6 minutes which is just introducing the speaker.

The rest is just bashing Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller and others who have tried to accommodate religious beliefs in science classes by telling students their religious views are respected.

So what is this guy complaining about? He is complaining that religious beliefs which discard evolution theory are being discriminated against by these measures. So now if you tell little Jimmy or Janie that they can have their religion and science too, you are still teaching them Mommy and Daddy are wrong because Mommy and Daddy believe in Adam and Eve, not in evolution theory. He is making a valid point. But it also leaves one in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position.

So tell me, how do you accommodate children in science classes when their religion just absolutely does not accept science? How do you accommodate the religion of people who refuse medical care for their children?

You simply cannot accommodate everyone's beliefs. At least not in a society where children have any rights.


And for the hypocrisy of the speaker, here he is in the end claiming science should stick to the evidence while at the same time claiming bad science as that evidence. He objects to scientists mentioning religion in classes, while proselytizing what scientists should wrongly conclude about the evidence. ....damned if you do, damned if you don't....

 

[CFLarsen]

In this context, you left off the god part. Imaginary friends are not usually thought of as creating the Universe.

How do you know that? How can you speak for other people? Some imaginary friends may be thought to be able to do a lot of different things.

What if you think your imaginary friend did create the universe? Ah, but that would make you insane, wouldn't it?

And, like I said, if you know it is an imaginary friend, you also know it is imaginary.

Do kids know that their imaginary friends are imaginary? They are pretty "real" to them, aren't they? Just as a deist god is "real" to a deist.

The deist god is not thought of as just some imaginary being.

Since the deist acknowledges that there is no evidence for the deist god, what is the difference?

There isn't really one - is there?