That man Dawkins

He is the other end of the continuum from the religious people who believe that the bible is literal. He is a fundamental scientist! Though I have to say I tend towards Dawkins rather than fundamental religions!

That's rubbish, lily. Both your complaints are wrong. I suggest rather more strongly than last time, that you don't know what you're talking about because you don't know enough about him, and, what's more, that you have a prejudiced and distorted view of him.

I don't know what he said on the programme, but he certainly didn't say what you're implying. He might have said (or implied) that some people of faith are unthinking, which they are, and that some people who believe in god don't believe in evolution, which is also true. I know, without even having to check, that he didn't mean what you have suggested he meant. I think you have misinterpreted what he said this time as well as on previous occasions.

For a start, I know people of faith who do believe in evolution, and so does Dawkins. And for a second, I know people of faith who are unthinking in the sense of not applying reason to what they think, and so does Dawkins. I bet you do too. That's probably nearer the truth. However, I bet none of us knows an atheist who hasn't thought about what they believe, or an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution. That's not to say neither of those animals exists, but it's highly unlikely, whereas it's not highly unlikely but actually provable the other way round.

Which is not to say (and Dawkins didn't say it, I'm sure, and never has) that all people of faith are unthinking (witness, as you said previously, theology) or that all people of faith are 'not capable' of believing in evolution.

Please quote what he actually said verbatim. If he said what you suggest he said I'll eat my hat (not the Fairisle beret – a different one).

Exempting your Fairisle beret implies some degree of doubt, Bags!

Bags - I could say that faith has to be just that - faith. No reasoning. And I could say that that's ok.

But I won't cos it will be the same old same old.

I doubt if lilygran's views are rubbish. Not to her and other christians anyway. Just your opinion, quite rudely expressed.

Do you know Dawkins personally Bags? Or have you spent a long time researching him?

Jim Al-Khalili suggested that a number of people of faith have in fact thought about it and have ended up believing. Dawkins said, 'Well, good luck to them' but did not elaborate. If it is true that many people, scientists included, do come to belief or remain believing it does call into question his major thesis, doesn't it? To Dawkins, faith and science are wholly incompatible and this is nonsense on stilts.

"'Well, good luck to them/you" could be usefully employed on here sometimes.

Although I am an atheist I can't stand bloody Dawkins. I've seen him on tv and read a number of articles of his.

He sets up a view of religion which is very partial and exaggerated and then uses up a lot of energy debunking it.

I know he must be clever in his own field but his views on religion are childish and unsophisticated.

In my opinion he gives the rest of us atheists a bad name.

jingl

Read his beautiful books. Then realize that he battles constantly against the enemies of science and reason, the fundamentalists, the ones who worship the 'holy' books, and want to drag us back into the middle ages. Worse - they are eager to reach what they think will be 'end times', and so have little interest in the world as it is now.

Richard Dawkins numbers Christians among his friends, including Bishops of the CoE.

And no matter how petallus and others condemn his views on religion, they never somehow come up with any evidence to refute those views.

Seriously - his The Greatest Show On Earth: The evidence for evolution is one of the most beautiful books I have ever read.

I believe in evolution as well as God! Dawkins argues that all believers are fundamentalists and all fundamentalists deny evolution. Two logical flaws.

As a result of the thread I have just listened to the programme on i-player.

At no time in the programme did Dawkins make any sweeping generalisations about individual people who have a religious faith. He did say he is against indoctrination which told people what to believe without presenting options. But did say that if people held a religious belief having considered a range of opinions 'Good luck to them, at least they have thought about it'. He does hope that in time there would be no religion.

He came over as a thoughtful man with strong opinions that he wants to communicate as widely as possible. A few of us on GN like that!

To you, he's a thoughtful man. To me, he's a bigot. Maybe a thoughtful bigot.

My natural inclincation is towards Dawkins' school of thought. I have no time for religions that seek to control people's thoughts and actions and think that everyone who doesn't agree with them are doomed!! Or worse till should be destroyed!

"Dawkins argues that all believers are fundamentalists and all fundamentalists deny evolution. Two logical flaws."

I agree that these could well be logical flaws.

I do not agree that Dawkins has ever argued those two things.

Since you say he has, lily, please could you present your evidence for believing such a thing – if you want me to believe you, that is. With evidence, I will believe you. Without it, you're talking through your hat (not to mention mine). If you don't want me to believe you, why say it? It doesn't bother me in the least that you don't like Dawkins, but you have no right to say untrue things about him.

(nag I'd eat a leather cap that I don't wear any more. If I had to. But I won't have to because what lily says above is simply not true, however much she believes it).

I don't think I'm misrepresenting his views at all. He does acknowledge that there are believers who don't fit into his model but chooses to ignore them. It's easier to knock down a straw man. Dishonest. Unscientific.

He did not come over as bigoted at all lily He was very self effacing in many ways . He wants people to know how to look at a range of evidence and, through critical thinking, come to a logical solution. He does not want people making major decisions on how to live their lives based on directives and guidance from powerful people who will not consider scientific facts.

Evidence, please, lily, not accusations.

Knock him down with logical reasoning. I challenge you to do it if it's so easy.

I suppose we have to remember that in this nation, England, over the past century or so, cultural christianity has been the order of the day. It's what people own up to on forms: 'Religion: CofE' - it's easy, and once you've flled the form you can go back to attending Midnight Mass at Christmas, and having babies splashed and named by the local vicar. We have a tradition of laughing at our clergy: DIckens, Trollope, Jane Austen onwards, the funny vicar (coming to tea!) is a stock figure. But that's here.

Elsewhere it's a different story. The American religious right-wingers are a fearsome bunch - they don't stop at killing some one they don't agree with - it's no surprise that they have been referred to as the American Taliban. And they are in the legislature, they have their hands on the purse-strings for science and education.

Say Texas decides that text-books must 'teach the controversy' - that means that all US text-books will teach the non-existent controversy. That's the kind of thing that Richard Dawkins has to battle with - and he is a man who dislikes confrontation.

If he doesn't 't like controversy, why does he seek it? Why is he so anxious to covert people to his way (the right way) of thinking? Scary! And why is he so worried about what goes on in some areas of the US? There is no 'scientific' proof of faith (been here before) because - er - it isn't science.

I think he does like controversy actually. Thrives on it. But the reason he argues as he does is because he thinks it's important that people understand the difference between actual truth and 'truth' as they see it for which there is no supporting evidence. You're right, lily, that in a way it can't be resolved, but I think Dawkins and others of that ilk (Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens before he died, and Dan Dennet, for instance) just want people to feel free to choose and not be under the thumb of whatever religion they have been brought up with. They want people to be free thinkers, reasoned thinkers, scientific thinker as much as possible, because science is what takes the human race forward, not religion, as history has shown and continues to show.

He, and they, are bothered about what goes on in America because what goes on there affects us all and affects the world of ideas. It's a small world and theirs is a worthy cause.

(Actually, I think Sam Harris argues that the dichotomy can be resolved when we understand more about how the brain works, but I'd have to check that.)

Lily there are already attempts to include the US style fundamentalist Christian creationist theories on some school curriculum here. I think it is important to take account of what is happening in USA as this country is closely aligned with them on all kinds of levels. IMO it would be foolish to think we can ignore US trends.