That man Dawkins

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Must have posted before I was finished. sorry.

Three cheers for anyone who is struggling to make sense of anything, material or immaterial. What is infuriating is the attitude of those who think the answers to everything were set in stone millenia ago.

JO4 there are people who try ..the paranormal studies fans etc have hunted ghosts for years!

But you are right it is not possible to do a scientific study on something that does not exist. You can study the human belief that deities exist though.

I read his book 'the God delusion' from cover to cover in a couple of days. he expressed so well so many things I'd been feeling for a long time, with excellent quotes and facts. Time to read it again, more slowly and taking notes.

I cannot believe that this Government has actually given a licence and funding for a creationist school in the North East. I always respect the beliefs of religious friends - but not when this goes beyond the private, and includes endoctrination and so-called missionary work. Our institutions are still led by religious dogma, and this is not acceptable any longer.

I quite agree granjura and I think it is utterly unreasonable for people to condemn Richard Dawkins without having read his books. This is serious thoughtful stuff, not soundbites.

No, lily. Quite so. Agreed. But science can prove what is false and what is true of the world as we know it and many of the things it has proved false are still believed by religious people (not you, necessarily) and some of the things that have been proved true by science are still not believed by religious people, because their religion tells them otherwise. I really would recommend that you read The God Delusion, not because I think you would agree with what Dawkins says, but because you'd understand better what he's saying. At the moment, you don't seem to understand what he's saying and you read into what he says things that he most certainly has not said. That's all.

jings, I would recommend you read it for similar reasons. Sam Harris is even better at the philosophical side, so I recommend him too.

I've just downloaded the selfish gene, for a little light holiday reading

Brilliant, witty book jeni! Hope you and maniac have a wonderful holiday

I'm sure we will. Thanks

Richard Dawkins - clever and handsome - what's not to like?

Greatnan your phrase 'what's not to like' definitely belongs in that recent thread about phrases we dislike
But I know what you mean about Richard Dawkins

Just a touch of humour, Jane - it can sometimes diffuse a situation.

?

Greatnan I agree
I just didn't want you to think that your use of 'that phrase' had gone unnoticed

I didn't think there was anything that needed diffusing...

But, of course, there might well have been.