Godlorica

In my opinion, Richard Dawkins does nothing but broadcast his views without providing any evidence whatsoever...although such a ten-minute interview was probably not the best platform to share his evidence anyway.
His theory of memes seems disgusting..the presence (in numbers) of a cultural product in society does not, in my opinion, directly correlate with its value and its "aptitude for survival". Life is not a race game, and it does not necessarily have to be profused with such conflict.
His first sentence in the book "Selfish Gene", which basically says that an imaginary creature living in the world will be fully intelligent only when knowing the justification for its existence, is a hypothetical game with words...a living being need not exactly know the reason for its existence in order to be able to fully value its existence, and it can be intelligent and fully comprehend the truths of life without having such certainty.
 

The most dangerous religion these days is the one that worships money. All this God stuff is just busyness to keep us distracted.
 

I watched the video and this is what I think.

Dawkins uses the similarity between ancient religious myths as a proof of their invalidity whereas many use it, especially thanks to Joseph Camplbell (the great researcher of world's mythology), as an argument on the contrary.

We don't need to give up rationality to accept views beyond materialistic reductionism. Interestingly Dawkins admits there is no proof that life is better in a "rational" society as opposed to a "religious" society.

I think that Dawkins is piggypacking on what he is calls an "Einsteinian religion" just because he must align himself with one of the greatest scientific minds of all time. Einstein made very open-minded statements for example in favor of Buddhism.

Bottomline: I think Dawkins is a hypocrite when saying he's "interested in the truth". After all he is ready to state for example that "simulating a god is childs play for a computer of the sophistication of the brain." Is that supposed to be a verified truth?
 

Dawkins knows more about Christianity than some professing believers. For example, he understands that Christianity involves a personal God who acts in time, miracles, an afterlife, eternal consequences for earthly actions, and a real physical second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As an atheist, he believes it all to be nonsense.

Dawkins understands that science, truth, and religion cannot be legitamately separated. He even agrees with the Apostle Paul, that "If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Cor 15.19, ESV).

So what keeps him going? In his own words, love of art, nature, science, music, children, etc. Unfortunately, as Nancy Pearcy has noted in her book "Total Truth," love has no legitimate basis in a materialistic world. By that worldview, we are all recycled carbon.

So how can we judge between these competing worldviews? As Pearcy points out, Christianity is the more consistent one. Then there is the witness of nature, of our own conscience, and the preserved writings of the Bible itself.

If these are insufficient, I can add nothing more.
 

Hi, I think that Dawkins (and a LOT of people) are unable to distinguish religion from church. Church is an institution, I believe religion talks about how we re-late, re-join and how we individually experience are comming here into life.

Its the same problem I every day when we all mix morals and ethic. While morals talk about consensus, ethics are invisible to every one els and can only be observable through our actions.

I believe church is like morals, consensus or institutions that speak of what we do. But religion is a personal way of being, only visible to others through the actions we carry out. Dawkins should just shut up because he has NO idea of the "truth" that I be-live.
 

I think part of the problem in these discussions is the word "GOD"-- it is a very weighted term. If a Christian were to ask me if I believed in GOD, and I said "yes"-- he would naturally picture it on his own terms, perhaps visualizing a glowing giant in the sky, with long flowing robes and a white beard. But that is NOT necessarily what I believe, as I tend more towards the "Einsteinian" idea that Dawkins puts forth, or perhaps the vision some have had while on LSD-- the concept of a spirit within all things, an infinite interconnectedness.

Dawkins does NOT necessarily dispute the existence of "god", but he does dispute the existence of GOD. The "proof" that Christians (or any other strict dogmatists) present is not very scientific, and always falls back on faith.

Furthermore, I have seen statisitcs that show the most atheistic societies (generally the European socialist democracies) have the least crime and the highest standards of living, whereas the countries with the lowest standards of living are all among the most religious. This may just be coincidence, of course, but I personally believe that it is far easier for an athieistic society to allow for religious differences, than for a religious society based on one belief to allow for competing beliefs. Fundametalist Christians believe that simply the EXISTENCE of scientific theories opposed to their dogma is some kind of "attack" on their values, and so they need to "fight back" at every opportunity.
 

A very few percentage of Christians picture God as a "glowing giant in the sky with a white beard"...

Most Christians I know tend to picture 'it' as inherent in nature...

Also, the poorest countries are generally more religious because, I think, they have nothing else to put faith into. Giant western corporations, such as Walmart and the rest (which offer you quality products at a very cheap price) often acquire their profit by plundering people in poor countries (making them work for practically nothing). These people, who barely have food enough not to starve, naturally don't have the right conditions for "intellectual" activities.
 

I disagree that dawkins doesn't provide evidence. (see the longer 1hr:47min video on richarddawkins.net from Lynchburg) In any case what he's engaged in doing is pointing out that the scientific process and experience of the three dimensional world allow for a more meaningful discussion of what is 'real' and 'true', whereas faith with its fuzzy re-use of language doesn't.

This angle is actually very refreshing and inspiring - that the real, demonstrable natural world is a far more interesting and diverse and exciting place than that dreamt up by various theists in different individual parts of human history can manage alone. That religious world views don't really account for our world, merely circumscribe it for reasons of organisational power and human subjugation.

As a scientist you presumably spend a lot of time wrestling with difficult facts about the world that you have to open your mind to in order to progress. religious people have only warm feelings and third rate cosmology about which they are always doomed to be apologetic and defensive - if their texts are open to revision nothing canonical can be saved. Nothing wrong in point that out in the 21st century I'd have thought!

alex
 

If anyone has seen Richard Dawkin's astrological birth chart, they would see that he finds faith and belief incomprehensible.
I feel that what he does say about genes and Darwinism etc is perfect but what he says about faith and God is rubbish. He cannot see what God is all about.
Give him praise where it is due and forgive him his denial - he cannot help it.
 

Cool, good post, it's in and you're linked, thanks!


absurd thought -
God can not be quantified
so therefore must not exist

man can't measure beyond Space
so then does it not exist?
.
 

It's funny to see how the man who coined the “meme” doesn't seem to grok memetics at all. God the meme is alive and well, thank you very much, and opposing it will only feed it. My sense is that Dawkins is barking up the wrong tree. The belief in reason is belief, not reason. There's no point in banging beliefs together to make some noise.

I'd ask mr. Dawkins to sing an ode to reason in his next book. Not reason as something to believe in, but as a way to find exact answers to exact questions.
 

Well, it certainly is disappointing that there isn't a single person here who agrees with Dawkins, or even understands what he is saying. What ignorance.