Richard Dawkins BBC Interview
Huw Edwards Interviews Richard Dawkins about his latest book The God Delusion on BBC News. This is one of the better Dawkins interviews I've seen. You can tell being on tour he has refined his answers and never misses a beat. The interviewer served up the questions and Richard knocked them out of the park. By the way since I shamelessly ripped the video from the Dawkins site. There a number of new articles. If you haven't visited today head on over you won't be disappointed.
Quicktime Video 5.1MB 10'23
Quicktime 7 required
Comments
He spoke at Cambridge Union this evening: it was pretty awesome. I now have a neat pile of signed books :)
Funny I came to all those conclusions atleast 3 years ago atleast, 18 at the latest. i shoulda wrote a book.
That was a good interview. I really do wish more atheist where just as out spoken as him.
Thanks for posting.
Oh, and I'm glad he mentioned the FSM! =)
Atheists should really be more outspoken. Just by not believing in Christ or Muhammed you're not changing the world. You have to actually do something to "convert" I hate how he explains his hate for comfort in religion because it is so opinionated. The more solid reason is that comfort is an opinion by someone and comfort is obtained by causing pain and guilt unnecessary to others. That is why it is wrong, not because its not true.
He tends to mention FSM whenever he gives a list of religions for comparisons. And it is great that he does :).
Richard, is certainly right that religion of all stripes is irrational and becoming more so. Consider the current elevated hypersensitivity around the subject, usually approached gingerly or avoided altogether along with politics, except in highly selective surroundings. While channel flipping recently I happened upon TV evangelist, Dr. Charles Stanley, who was once again advancing the theory of an exclusive god. No pun intended but I’m aware this is not a revelation. However, what I was struck by, even though it was purely accidental that he was mid-phrase when my surfing landed on his wave, were his pronouncements of how his god would deal with the rebellious in society, assumedly the unsaved among us. To repeat his words his god would take a “torch to them” and use a “pruning knife”, the implication being his particular god would use these tactics to convert unbelievers with torture or eliminate them like an errant limb. He describes nonbelievers as “egotistical and arrogant” and in an unveiled threat of eternal damnation, proposes that these heretics who either believe in other gods or no gods “will die without him” (him being Dr. Stanley’s god). He clarifies further by saying, “if your idea about god doesn’t match (his), then your god is not THE god.”
During the Medieval Inquisition in 1234 CE, Bishop Raymond du Fauga interrupted his dinner preparations to deal with a bedridden woman he deemed a heretic by having her tied to her bed, carried into a field and burned to death, returning to the refectory in time for dessert. For almost seven centuries it was typical that while suffering unimaginable torture, those accused of heresy were required to reveal the names of other non-believers to achieve a merciful death. Some were “favored” with strangulation before being burned at the stake.
Dr. Stanley, elevated on a stage, four feet above his packed, note taking, congregation, nattily clad in a grey suit and red power tie, with blow dried, immoveable gray hair, drawls a homey contemplation saying “in the ways of god, up yonder, sitting on a throne, which he is” the “rebellious” will suffer the consequences of their intransigence. In sum he recommends that errant members of the flock not yet in the fold petition the lord with prayer to provide guidance for a prudent and saved life and afterlife thereby avoiding these extreme punishments.
In the opening of the song “Soft Parade”, Jim Morrison, considered a poet by some and lead singer of the 1960’s musical group, The Doors, screams repeatedly, “you can not petition the lord with prayer.” Morrison a self motivated student of religion and philosophy chose the name of his group from an 18th century publication by William Blake. In it Blake, a religious radical, writes “If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as infinite.”
By the examples of Dr. Stanley one of many 21st century front men for Christianity, and in virtually all faiths, any potential for an infinite view of humanity has become limited by the hysteria of institutionalized religious mythology. Many unfortunately still proclaiming a literal do or die belief in their particular version of god, as they petition their lord with prayer. It’s unfortunate that in the year 2006 we continue as a species to petition anyone or anything with a request for the annihilation of others, but we do.
Athiesm is just as dogmatic as any religion. To say people have to be converted to it, as Dido says, is correct. If anything, the only "logical" perspective in this debate belongs to the agnostics.
To state the obvious, the questions asked were very shallow.
Nominate me; You are very incorrect.
Athiesm isnt dogmatic in the least bit because it is reliant on evidence and ever changing proof. There is observable evidence that god doesnt exist (look around, do you see him, Id assume no).
You have a misunderstanding of the word agnostic. You can be agnostic-thiest (one who believes in god but believes theres no evidence to prove it) or an agnostic-athiest (one who believes there is no god and there is no knowledge to prove it.
You must be thinking of a apathetic. One who doesnt decide from the evidence given would be apathetic, which really isnt anymore logical (dont know why you put quotes around it) considering the evidence.
A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he though God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's. Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence. The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so. -- Richard Dawkins, following a list of excerpts from hate mail sent to the editor of Freethought Today, after she won a separationist court battle, in "A Challenge To Atheists: Come Out of the Closet" (Free Inquiry, Summer, 2002) paragraph division added ††
Does anyone ever ask Dawkins hard questions? Every time he gets asked the 'how can you believe all of creation is an accident given it's complexity?' question, I want to scream at the interviewer.
Dawkins does a fine job at explaining evolution, poking holes in creationism, etc... But then again, I can do that.
The trickier questions (like "Do you believe all truth can be proven scientifically?") are the ones I'd be far more interested in hearing him speak to. I guess mass media interview shows are probably not where I should expect to see him tackling those, however.
I think he was wrong in one point: logic is not "man-made" as the viewer suggested, but it is from this world and may not extend to anything outside of this world(which is what religion tries do describe). so strictly it is not scientific to use logic to describe those things and a spaghetti monster might be possible. it's just very unlikely, though as unlikely as any other religion.
@Kevin, "Do you believe all truth can be proven scientifically?"
of course not, what makes you think so?
I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.
-Isaac Asimov
Atheisim may be defined as the view that "God exists" is a false statement. But there is also a broader sense in which an atheist is someone who rejects belief in God, not necessarily because such belief is judged to be false. It may be rejected because it is incoherent or meaningless, because it is too vague to be of any explanatory value, or because, as LaPlace put it in his famous exchange with Napoleon, there is no need for this "hypothesis". Atheism in this broader sense remains distinct from agnosticism, which advocates suspense of judgement. It is surely possible to justify atheism in this broader sense without having to "examine every object in boundless space and eternal time."
To proclaim himself an agnostic, while to some it might appear more respectable and cautious, would be to say in effect that he hadn't decided what to believe. -- Emanuel Haldeman-Julius
Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean "neither affirming nor denying a belief in God." -- Gordon Stein, defending the "weak" definition for the word atheism, in "The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism," in Gordon Stein, ed., An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism (1980)
agnostic-athiest; I think you're the one who's (very) incorrect.
Athiesm is (per the dictionary) dogmatic as it is 'inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true'. It describes a belief in an incontrovertible truth - that there is no God. There is no observable evidence that god doesn't exist (your inability to see him is certainly not proof - I can not see you at the moment, but I do not claim this as proof you do not exist).
Nominal Me was (presumably) using the common use of the word agnostic, as opposed to one of the more complicated forms favored by some atheists in an attempt to make their position seem more scientific. Almost all theists are 'agnostic-thiests' (using your definition) as few in this world claim the ability to scientifically prove God's existence. Likewise, almost all atheists are 'agnostic-athiests' (again, using your term) as almost none claim to be able to prove the non-existence of God. The percentage of the worlds population that claims to be able to scientifically prove God's existence (the only non-agnostics using your terms) is exceedingly small.
So, let's call a spade a spade. Theists believe there is a God. Atheists believe there is no God. Agnostics do not have a firm belief either way.
Most of the more-complicated definitions I've seen regarding atheism seem to be pushed by atheists who just don't like the fact that there is exactly the same evidence for atheism as theism (namely zero).
Nominal Me: You are right, if you agree that not believing in fairies and dragons is as dogmatic as believing in them.
However I'm not sure that a lot of people would agree that the logical (and practical) perspective on all things not supported by evidence is to don't question them. In fact that sort of would deny Occam's razor.
After all even most agnostics don't seem to take the middle ground on all the nonsense we can think up (e.g. Russell's teapot), but just on the one called "god".
And before someone jumps in and tells me atheism is actually a lack of belief in God, my dictionary (Oxford American) defines it as "the theory or belief that God does not exist."
If you don't like that definition, please substitute whatever word you think fits the definition above. Per the Gordon Stein quote in the previous post, if you go with the 'lack of belief' definition, no third position or middle ground is possible. And there are clearly three camps out there - yes, no, and maybe.
By the fervor of the posts, it's obvious that there may be little difference between the energy and conviction of both theists and atheists. In an attempt to differentiate, I'll make the assumption that at least in this country, modern atheists have excluded the necessity of murdering theistic true believers for their beliefs.
To me, the need to extinguish divergent theist opinions, by eliminating the competition is a glaring example of the irrationality around the existence of a benevolent being most religions expound. Ancient as well as Current events make this fact painfully inarguable. Theists can engage in all the cherry picking they like from the bible, koran or name the book, but the fact is much of majority religious doctrine espouses the extinction of others. Usually by some violent display of smoting and smiting.
This reality is regularly danced around by the so called moderate representatives of religion, because they understand that the words have been written and can not be taken back.
Unfortuantely for them no amount of reinterpretation or spin can change what may be the only real evidence they have, that their religion is living up to its primary objective, a violently attained MONOTHEISTIC world.
Thanks again, Norm, for continuing to post videos and other info on atheism issues that in my opinion are becoming more relevant every day. And thanks to all who comment, I appreciate the points you make as they inform my own opinion and perceptions.
On a personal note, I have to admit that although I have considered myself an atheist for the last few years, I have chosen to tell people I'm merely agnostic. This isn't something of which I am proud, just a decision I made thinking it would make situations with friends and family a bit less uncomfortable. I have a feeling there are many more like me who are afraid to come out and plainly say they are atheist, and it is a shame we live in a time and place where this is so. In the last couple of months, I've stopped identifying myself as agnostic and when asked, I simply and confidently say I am an atheist. And it feels good.
As an atheist I hold no belief that there is no god…that would be liken to faith…I deny their existence altogether.
True, 'doctrine' often does, even though (in the case of the 'Big Three' monotheistic religions) the actual religious text upon which the religions are based spend surprisingly little time on the subject.
The need to extinguish divergent opinions is endemic of human beings (atheists as well as theists), and not something we get from religion. Look at the Bible (specifically the New Testament, which claims to supersede much of the Old Testament) and you see a clear promotion of peace, selflessness, and humility over any type of violent call to action or intolerance. The problem of course, is that most Christians (at least the especially vocal ones) rarely seem to embody that philosophy.
It's incredibly naive to blame religion for many of the world's evils. On the whole, people like to be right, and to tell other people how they should live and what they should believe. And people (on the whole) will justify their beliefs and actions on whatever is most convenient (be it religion, political movements, or whatever).
Stefan,
I'm curious how Dawkins would answer the question, "Do you believe all truth can be proven scientifically?"
I would also say no, but its an interesting question to ask a hardcore atheist, because if the answer is no, then the obvious followup is, "Is it preposterous to hold a belief in something that can not be proven scientifically (assuming it has not be scientifically disproven)?"
Can the question "Can all truth can be proven scientifically?" be answered by science? I don't think so.
http://www.yo-god.com
"Do you believe all truth can be proven scientifically?"
Science describes a method for understanding the nature of the universe, not a belief-system. Science does not require beliefs at all. However, it does require observation, reason, hypotheses, experimentation, theory, and facts in order to produce knowledge about the universe. Of course some scientists do believe their theories, but it has no requirement at all. Yes science produces confidence because the repeatability of the tests confirm a hypothesis (probability). Thinking in terms of probabilities allow scientists to make reliable (but not absolute) predictions about the world, all without requiring beliefs. For example, I don't have to test every day the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. I know this because we have a record of reliable scientific observation that makes this prediction.
Either I don't know, I have a guess (a hypothesis), or I know (with relatively high probability). Nowhere do I require the ownership of a belief or absolutes.
Would someone care to give an example of something they think can't in principle be proven scientifically or least informed by it. Science doesn't ever claim certainty, It is always open to additional evidence. It seems to me the question is another attempt to invoke the God of the Gaps as an answer. But that doesn't explain anything. It just assigns the name God to we don't know. I think what Kevin is talking about are value questions. Can science answer those? No, but how we answer those questions can be informed by science. It can be informed by our experience and by our use of reason. Adding a God to the mix adds nothing.
Erick, I now think I know how you're going to answer my question regarding belief in the other post. It seems to me you're using a fairly narrow definition of 'belief'. My dictionary defines it as 'an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists'.
Scientists are the first to say that (conceptually), facts and knowledge don't really exist. They are linguistic conveniences meant to indicate the most solidly held beliefs, but are always open to being debunked.
All that said, I'll rephrase the question: "Do you expect that truths exist which can not be scientifically tested or proven?"
The reason people "convert" to atheism is because they finally realize the logical reasons of not believing in God. Although we cannot be absolutely certain, there is enough evidence to make his inexistence probable and therefore eliminate his wierd customs and beliefs and such. For example Armageddon and the coming of God's Kingdom. Agnostics are total idiots who tihnk that the proof for and against god is equal. Its not.
On another note, I think i could be as good as Dawkins on these interviews if not better. They ask him common sense questions. I think they try to make him look stupid. And that is probably because the station is trying so hard not to offend religious believers.
Lastly, there are plenty of atheists talking here. What do you people think about Christmas? What do you do for it? Just ignore it?
On the question "Can all be proved through science?" No it probably can't. We can't go far enough into space to prove everything. But we have absolutely no reason to think otherwise for lack of proof the other way. Although everything on this Earth can be firmly proven, farther in space, things may be much different. We'll never know till we get there.
I haven't the slightest idea (I think I would need omniscience to know that). No doubt there exist phenomena or concepts beyond the capacity for humans to understand (at this time), or things which seem beyond our capabilities, but that doesn't mean that an alien specie living in another part of the universe might not have the scientific means to understand that phenomenon or even that humans may one day evolve to scientifically understand it.
I haven't the slightest idea (I think I would need omniscience to know that). No doubt there exist phenomena or concepts beyond the capacity for humans to understand (at this time), or things which seem beyond our capabilities, but that doesn't mean that an alien specie living in another part of the universe might not have the scientific means to understand that phenomenon or even that humans may one day evolve to scientifically understand it.
But, you seem to be arguing that if a truth exists, it has the potential to be tangibly proven (assuming sufficient technology). Intangible concepts like right and wrong, love & hate, beauty, inspiration are nothing more than subjective (artificial) human creations?
Norm:
"Would someone care to give an example of something they think can't in principle be proven scientifically or least informed by it."
I'll take a crack at it.
Since Dawkins have been making historical and philosophiocal judgements and opinions, he has earned the right to catching a hot potatoe that has bedeviled philosophers for all time.
Can science prove in principle whether men is born good or evil?
The concern here should not be on absolute or relative definitions of good verses evil.
Let it just be good in terms of loving others and wanting to do good and evil as in hurtful and violent tendencies that harms others.
I hear all this faith is irrational, but could be that faith is rational in the sense humans need to have something higher to believe in and to be a vanguard in social habits?
I live in New Zealand, and i have actually never been to church in my life, and this is not uncommon these days i would presume. I feel the state and its institutions provide better more relevant guidance than archaic religions.
I see religions as the rational capitalisation on both emotional and social tenets of human nature.
I recently read James Lovelocks book 'the revenge of Gaia' and i find many of his arguments compelling, one of which is to utilise metaphor much like the bible to instill a strong desire to protect Gaia, our earth, the life sustainer for over 2billion years! He says metaphor can be vital to convey often complex scenarios beyond intuition to people, for instance the complex regulatory interdependence of every living organism on the planet. He goes on, we need a new book, a book of science, written so that it has enough detail that it is a valid source of knowledge, and at the same time readable so that it could be used to teach primary school children, the end being our earths health is at the fore of all our decisions.
While i agree religion or faith as we know it is irrelevant, that doesn't mean as concepts with the potential for very real benefits, are irrelevant.
If you haven't seen this clip on the origins of the religious impulse, I think you'll find it a reasonable explanation for what Kevin believes is evidence for the existence of a God.
i like dawkins, but i don't like seeing him dancing with a tv audience/interviewer. for one, its completely unfair-he is an expert in his "religion" (sorry guys) and he's fielding questions/objections from people who are decidedly NOT expert in theirs. i'd much rather see him in a format that was popular in the middle ages, where the participants in the debate are both highly knowledgable in their own positions-and those of the other. as it is, its either like taking candy from children, or he actually makes misleading statements in the interest of necessary simplification. an example would be his answer to the very first question, from mohammed of south london, who asks (i paraphrase mightily) "why/how anything?" to which dawkins replys (i paraphrase even more mightily)" why/how? because of evolution." now, any scientists worth his salt, including dawkins when he's thinking clearly, will tell you evolution doesn't explain why/how, it explains why/how this and not that. science certainly has what to say about why/how (full stop), but its not evolutionary theory, its physics and its many speculative modern offshoots. dawkins, in the interest of clarity and brevity for a poorly educated tv audience is actually perpetrating the myth that scientists believe that evolution is god, as it were. scientists, no matter how good, are no better at answering the really big questions in 20 second soundbites than are theologians. tho the evangelical christians are trying to make a science out of it. :)
i guess mohammed was acually asking "how can everything be so organized and complex?", but dawkins' answer is still misleading. evolutionary theory doesn't tell us how things become organized and complex, it tells us how things became organized and complex IN THIS PARTICULAR WAY. and the gaps in our understanding of this, btw, are still massive and astounding.
interesting clip on the origins of the religious impulse. i'm curious, why would this impulse to ascribe intention to "unseen agents" be an evolutionary mistake? it seems to me it would be a survival aid (a point miller himself touches on).
"Athiesm is just as dogmatic as any religion. To say people have to be converted to it, as Dido says, is correct. If anything, the only "logical" perspective in this debate belongs to the agnostics."
Your an atheist when it comes to Zeus does that you dogmatic? I would say a lot of atheist are no more domagtic than your atheism towards Zeus.
"All that said, I'll rephrase the question: "Do you expect that truths exist which can not be scientifically tested or proven?""
GOD OF GAPS FALLACY! JUST LABEL ANYTHING YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN AS GOD. That doesn't accomplish ANYTHING! Just but's a nonsense label on what we don't understand.
"gaps in our understanding of this, btw, are still massive and astounding."
GOD OF GAPS FALLACY. You obviously haven't read a book on evolution are gaps aren't EVEN CLOSE TO MASSIVE.
These are the hallmarks of a religious enthusiast (in Hume's sense) to my mind:
In other words, virtue will lead you to the Right View, and only virtue will spring from it, but vice will lead you to Wrong Things, and only vice will spring form them. Exactly what counts as virtues and vices here depends on the view in question, but intellectual virtues such as reason are quite often thought to be amongst the kinds of virtues that lead you to the Right View (it is the traditional view of the Roman Catholic Church that reason gets you at least as far as being a theist, for example). This all leads to two basic qualities of a religious enthusiast:- it becomes virtually impossible for them to have any degree of respect or understanding of anyone else's position — if you think of people as being either malicious or stupid, they have to be seen as opponents that must be battled, or possibly as benighted souls that must be paternalistically cared for, but never as equals that must be engaged with. Possibilities for dialouge become much attenuated in favour of conflict.
- the enthusiast is convinced that their own view must win out over the others, and us prepared to sacrifice much to achieve this.
Working out exactly why all of this is bad, no matter what view the enthusiast happens to adhere to, is left as an excercise for the reader.
The foremost religious promulgator and proselytizer in terms of time and attention from the media and the interwebs thus seems to be none other than Richard Dawkins. Not even the Pope gets this kind of air-time to promote the overwhelming advantages of Roman Catholicism.
When confronted with a question to his beliefs regarding the begining of time, he rebuffed with something about Darwinian Evolution! What? The writer of the letter was commenting about the cause of existence, not about what that existence bedcomes later. The 'building left standing' was a reference to the make-up of the time continuum -which began at the big bang. What does Darwinian Evolution have to do with the Big bang? He should have admitted that he simply doesn't know.
Hi Purple, I'm with you on this one.
Dawkins is beginning to overstretch his thesis by trying to use evolution to explain everything.
That is not the essence of Darwinism.
I will be interested to see if Dawkins can put the same points across on the passage of mankind since immemorial in the presence of a professor of sociology, history and philosophy.
The fact that (once I dismiss all the people I feel make logically flawed arguments) I always find myself back to the notion of God balancing perfectly between possible/probable and impossible/improbable. The hardcore theists and the hardcore atheists make equally uncompelling arguments (from my perspective). When I try to invent a fictional proposition that is both as plausible and yet unprovable as the notion of God, I'm always unable to. I'm always able to spot some imbalance, or easy hole to poke in my made-up scenario.
The first question I ask myself when considering the notion of God (given my view of the world and religion) is, "If there is a God, does he want people to be able to prove he exists?". My conclusion is that if there was a God, and he did want people to be able to prove that he existed, then that knowledge would a) spread rapidly, and b) have a monumental effect on free will.
My opinion is that the more likely scenario (if there is a God) is that he would not want people to be able to prove his existence. And as soon as I consider that possibility, I find that the world I expect would result from that scenario looks pretty much exactly like the one I find myself living in.
Bleh. That's not enough detail to really explain where I'm coming from, but hopefully you get the idea.
In this case, it's not that 'A' leads to 'B', but rather that considering 'B' requires 'A' to be true.
The first (small) step in in even considering the possibility of a supernatural God is, "Do I believe that the supernatural even exists? Do I believe in the notion that things exist which can not be proven?" If no, then you're done. If yes, move on to the next question.
Kevin writes:
It seems to me the burden of proof is on the person making the claim not on the one saying you claim there is a god prove it. If you can't provide credible evidence. If the argument for the God ends up being circular, there is no point in discussing it at all. Does it mesh well? Only because the religious cherry pick the scriptures. Why do I think God fits so well for those with the religious impulse. It's elementary, man created God in his own image.
It's your right to decide there's no point in discussing it (though you obviously feel there's great benefit in discussing it). I mentioned in another point the longstanding philosophical question as to whether or not consciousness truly exists. Is there any point in discussing that? You may feel no, but I'd say yes because I fundamentally believe that if there's the possibility of a truth there, then it's worth having discussion and an opinion on it. You don't have to agree.
My view of God meshing well has nothing to do with scriptures (cherry-picked or not), because (for starters) I don't believe that any scriptures out there provide an accurate picture of God, and I believe all are flawed given how much of a role human beings had in writing them.
Your 'elementary' assumption that man created God in his own image also doesn't apply to me (nor do I think it holds up well under scrutiny for a great many others). One of the most common things that (I think) causes a crude perception of God (by theists and atheists alike) is thinking of God as basically a big human being with 'magic powers'. If I had magic powers and the desire to play God, the world I would create would look nothing like this one. In fact, one of the biggest reasons people doubt God is because (if he does exist) he doesn't appear to act very 'human' at all.
Lucretius, back in the 1st century bc in De Res Natura (about line 100) says this:
Tantum Religio Potuit Suadere Malorum
"So much wrong could religion induce" - also translated as "All religions are fundamentally immoral as they invariably cause more harm than good".
But as arc above points out, whose is the religion here?
As to atheism there are two kinds:
Positive Atheism - You assert that there is no god. Logically, this requires the same level of proof as asserting there is a God, so it seems to me as reasonable (or unreasonable) as the opposite position.
Negative Atheism - you point out that the theists have not made their case, and that you are unpersuaded that there is a god. You do not believe in a god. This leaves the existence of such a god unaddressed, and focusses on the belief aspect. Others feel it is not differentiable from agnosticism, but I think this misses the point of it being about your beliefs. The agnostic seems unsure of their beliefs, and worries about the existence aspect.
And so to Mr Dawkins. He seems to be making a moral claim - religions are bad, a belief claim - there is no god, and then following through with the kind of evangelical hooplah to be found in the more entertaining religious establishments in pressing his case - rhetoric.
I may be mistaken, but the impression I have is that Mr Dawkins is the negative atheist's worst enemy.
Lucretius, back in the 1st century BC in De Rerum Natura (about line 100) says this:
Tantum Religio Potuit Suadere Malorum
"So much wrong could religion induce" - also translated as "All religions are fundamentally immoral as they invariably cause more harm than good".
But as arc above points out, whose is the religion here?
As to atheism there are two kinds:
Positive Atheism - You assert that there is no god. Logically, this requires the same level of proof as asserting there is a God, so it seems to me as reasonable (or unreasonable) as the opposite position.
Negative Atheism - you point out that the theists have not made their case, and that you are unpersuaded that there is a god. You do not believe in a god. This leaves the existence of such a god unaddressed, and focusses on the belief aspect. Others feel it is not differentiable from agnosticism, but I think this misses the point of it being about your beliefs. The agnostic seems unsure of their beliefs, and worries about the existence aspect.
And so to Mr Dawkins. He seems to be making a moral claim - religions are bad, a belief claim - there is no god, and then following through with the kind of evangelical hooplah to be found in the more entertaining religious establishments in pressing his case - rhetoric.
I may be mistaken, but the impression I have is that Mr Dawkins is the negative atheist's worst enemy.
Kevin, The creation is no better or worse than the creator. If you're a bright fellow and aren't suffering from any severe mental illnesses you imagine a more sophisticated god than does a fundamentalist. If your a deist and have some amorphous view of god there is nothing to get at. If you have some specific concept of what your god is and what part it plays in your life then where does that knowledge come from? Is it just a hunch? You create your own conception of god whether the god also exists and whether you have good reasons to believe as you do is the question. If you think there is something to discuss you're going to have to define more specifically what it is exactly that you believe.
Wow. Reading all these comments, I'd like to give you a suggestion. Go to an encyclopedia and look up Satanism. For one, you'll be shocked to find out that they don't hail Satan. And two, you don't believe in an outside God but in yourself. It makes alot of sense. It just sounds bad. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism#Fundamental_individualism
Dude, so questions?
How do you love others if you have not yet learn to love yourself?
How do you have faith in others when you lack faith in yourself?
People who believe that you can love others and have faith without applying them to themselves are in danger of escapism and wishful thinking.
Case in point. The hardest truth to bear is the truth about you.
So when you say that you know the truth, have you faced it in yourself?
TYPO:
"Dude, so you will have no problems with these questions?"
For me Dawkins is a religious fanatic, so wrapped up in his 'reason' that he fails to see how wrong he could be. I'm not sure how anyone can come to the conclusions drawn up by many here without first understanding Godel's incompleteness theorems, and their relation to Physics as laid down by the catholic priest Stanley Jaki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27sincompletenesstheorems
http://pirate.shu.edu/~jakistan/JakiGodel.pdf
I'm not saying I'm right, but when dealing with the infinite you can't use statistics