That man Dawkins

I don't see how you can possibly scientifically study God. Or an afterlife.

Neither will faith ever disprove scientific research. Two different systems.

But one looks at the onion as it is being revealed, the other as it was seen in a past snapshot.

The fundamentalists want to return to a previous state where everyone was quite certain that all was known about everything and there was no need to find out more. They are pepared to muzzle and blindfold anyone who tries to show them a more recent picture.

That is what Richard Dawkins gets angry about.

That's a very nice analogy. Think you can say the same about religious faith.

I know some very enlightened Christians who are struggling to make sense of the non-material and unprovable aspects of life.

Scientific study is an onion. Layers of approximations are peeled off one after the other as more detail on a subject is discovered and proved accurate. Some people can visualise and accept the view newly revealed, others stick with the one they are used to, sometimes several layers of knowledge back.

Fundamentalists prefer the nice familiar brown shiny skin which has covered the onion since it was first harvested. That is its natural state and the one they feel they are meant to admire and to praise its maker for.

But Bags (tears hair out and stamps on it) science will not 'prove ' to anyone that faith is fraudulent or wrong! two different forms of knowledge.

I'm not sure 'science' ever said the earth was flat. It was assumed that the earth was flat until science discovered otherwise, just as it was assumed (based on religious beliefs) that the universe was geocentric until science proved otherwise and so on throughout the history of human endeavour. Yes, scientists make mistakes because they are human, but when the mistakes are uncovered as fraudulent or simply wrong, science discards them.

Agree Petallus . I sometimes think that people like Dawkins just court controversy to sell books and make more money.

Plus, isn't it rather arrogant of him to set himself up as some kind of enlightening 'saviour' of deluded humanity?

It's not as though 'science' has an unblemished record. It has come up with some really daft ideas in the past (flat earth, wandering wombs) and been responsible for tragedies, cruelty (lobotomies) and so on.

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.

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.)

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 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.

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

Evidence, please, lily, not accusations.

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.

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.

"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).

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!

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

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!

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

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.

jingl

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.