Evidence for God from Science

Very valid point.

Of course, I can only hypothesize on why this is, but it may have something to do with the fact that Dawkins has a history of preaching to the converted so to speak. If his main audience consists of atheists, then one can expect a number of negative reviews from at least some of them, just as books on cooking may be attacked by chefs, or books on physics may be attacked by other physicians.

Dawkins does address this in his book at various points. He often gets accused of being a "science fundamentalist" by many people, and he does well to defend himself in the book. He states at one point that his atheism is "purely limited to words". He said himself, I believe on a BBC news interview with Edwards, that the climate for this book to be released in UK and USA has not been right for some time. He recognises that what he is writing causes controversy, but his aim is to make this a subject that is openly debated and no longer seen as an untouchable topic. He doesn't like the idea of religion sealing itself off and saying "This is my faith and you show no respect by openly contradicting it."

Indeed, this book has caused a lot of controversy, even with the non-religious. He wrote the book in hope that some day the world would not be shocked at such a release. I am not surprised at all that fellow atheists have deprecated his book, something which Dawkins anticipated before he wrote it.

On the other hand, a few critics on the atheist side should not detract from the huge amount of praise this book has induced from the same group. It has sparked the whole debate into life, and many other authors have been inspired to write their own books with similar sentiments. You are always going to get those who say "Oh my goodness, did he just say that?" because many of these things are often deemed a no-go area by religious folk as well as non-religious.

Best regards,

David

David,

In response, I see it somewhat differently.

Dawkins, Harris and to a lesser extent, Dennett, have raised their rhetoric particularly in the wake of 9/11 attempting to corelate Fundamentalist Islam with any form of fundamental religious belief.

Further, they go on from there to equate the majority of religious people who are positive, contributing parts of the societies they live in as enablers who must be seen as equally as dangerous.

I see the writing and promoting of these books and the timing and environment as rather opportunistic in that regard.

If you have not read this article, by Gary Wolf recently released in Wired,

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71985-0.html

I'd encourage you to do so. Wolf proclaims to be an Atheist and challenges the tenets of Dawkins, Harris and Dennet is quite some detail.

The God Delusion, as best as I can tell at this point based upon the response to it, isn't simply about establishing a case for Atheism. It is about equally establishing a case against religion in any form, and what is more alarming, advocating the state to equate religious training with child abuse and thus eliminate any faith based schools or training, even, conceivably to the point of banning parents from teaching religion in their home or taking them to Church.

This is more than an acedemic tome. It is a radical call to action and seeking to plant the seeds for this type of future in the Western World.

It appears to echo other such experiments in other societies especially in the 20th century doesn't it? The Soviet Union, Hitler's Youth, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China etc.

How is calling religious training, "Child Abuse" and advocating state control and intervention simply "an atheism of words?" It seems rather aimed at resulting in actions, from my point of view.

Regards,

Bart

I have indeed read the article.

I can't stress enough (And neither can Dawkins) that his atheism is purely limited to words. I found his chapter on religion and children the most interesting read in the book. I couldn't put it down during that chapter. It was a new concept that I have to say I had never really consolidated in my head.

Essentially, he tries to convey the idea that teaching children that unquestioned faith is a virtue and that an eternity of damnation if they do not live in a certain way is a form of abuse. He uses a couple of case studies. I will quote one of them here. This is a letter Dawkins received:

"I went to a Catholic school from the age of five, and was indoctrinated by nuns who wielded straps, sticks and canes. During my teens I read Darwin, and what he said about evolution made such a lot of sense to the logical part of my mind. However, I've gone through life suffering much conflict and deep down fear of hell fire which gets triggered quite frequently. I've had a some psychotherapy which has enabled me to work through some of my earlier problems but can't seem to overcome this deep fear. So, the reason I'm writing to you is would you send me the name and address of the therapist you interviewed on this week's programme who deals with this particular fear."

His point is that the concept of teaching this woman that eternal hell fire is her destiny if she puts a foot wrong is a form of mental torture, and mental torture, Dawkins believes, leaves the biggest imprint on a person's life. He describes various stories of people stating their atheism to their religious parents and being disowned, or splitting up with partners over the subject.

Dawkins then, quite rightly in my opinion, illustrates his aim to "raise consciousness". Just as one shudders when somebody uses a politically incorrect term for a foreign person for example, he wants to people to shudder when they hear a child described as "A Christian child." Rather, he wants them to be called "A Child of Christian parents." It's no different, he says, that calling a child a Marxist child, or a Republican child, or any other concept that is too complex for a child to understand.

If you wish I'd be delighted to post some larger sections of the book on here. I have no problem sending some PMs as well if anybody would like to know more about specific passages. The religion and children chapter of his book is particularly long and detailed, so it is difficult to summarize it all, and I have already gone well over what a post on a forum should be!

David

pdavid wrote:His point is that the concept of teaching this woman that eternal hell fire is her destiny if she puts a foot wrong is a form of mental torture, and mental torture, Dawkins believes, leaves the biggest imprint on a person's life. He describes various stories of people stating their atheism to their religious parents and being disowned, or splitting up with partners over the subject.

Dawkins then, quite rightly in my opinion, illustrates his aim to "raise consciousness". Just as one shudders when somebody uses a politically incorrect term for a foreign person for example, he wants to people to shudder when they hear a child described as "A Christian child." Rather, he wants them to be called "A Child of Christian parents." It's no different, he says, that calling a child a Marxist child, or a Republican child, or any other concept that is too complex for a child to understand.

David

David, on what moral basis does Dawkins judge God to be a "misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"?

What's really scary is someone who isn't afraid of Hell.

David, on what moral basis does Dawkins judge God to be a "misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"?

I remember this passage well. He has recited it quite a few times as well. I will talk a bit about it. First off, he uses it as an argument against the idea that we get our morals from the bible. His belief is that we don't get our morals from scripture, and I agree. I am not a Christian, but I live a morally sound life. I will give you some passages here to show how he supports his claim.

"...in Genesis with the well-loved story of Noah, derived from the Babylonian muth of Uta-Napisthim and known from the older mythologies of several cultures. The legend of the animals going into the ark 2 by 2 is charming, but the moral of the story of Noah is appalling. God took a dim view of humans, so he (with the exception of one family) drowned the lot of them including children and also, for good measure, the rest of the animals as well."

Dawkins' next paragraph answers prospective responses to this:

"Of course, irritated theologians will protest that we don't take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is my whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symboles or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the atheist's decision to follow this moral precept or what a personal decision, without any absolute foundation. If one of these is 'morality flying by the seat of its pants', so is the other."

Dawkins does make a convincing argument. His point is that Christians base which parts of scripture to believe on independent criteria, criteria which is external to religious scripture. If they "cherry pick" which bits to call "allegories" and which bits to call "fact" then they must be using an independent decision-making process which is available to everybody.

In the same chapter, Dawkins goes on to use various parts of the bible to show a god with the traits you point out above:

"In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Noah equivalent, chosen to be spared with his family because he was uniquely righteous, was Abraham's nephew Lot. Two male angels were sent to Sodom to warn Lot to leave the city before the brimstone arrived. Lot hospitably welcomed the angels into his house, whereupon all the men of Sodom gathered around and demanded that Lot should hand the angels over so that they could (what else?) sodomize them: 'Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them' (Genesis 19:5). Yes, 'know' has the Authorized Version's usual euphemistic meaning, which is very funny in the context. Lot's gallantry in refusing the demand suggests that God might have been onto something when he singled him out as the only good man in Sodom. But Lot's halo is tarnished by the terms of his refusal: 'I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughteres which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof'(Gensis 19:7-8 ).

Dawkins frequently quotes passages like this in the bible, and shows that for every quote that one can find is support of this all-loving god, there is another which shows a god with those traits you see above.

All of this is to prove his point that we do not get our morals from the bible, neither do we need to get our morals from the bible. If we did, we would all be offering our daughters up for gang rape when requested.


Best regards,

David

pdavid,

It is good to see that you've dropped the pretense of seeking to be a reasonable voice and, as Dawkin's books do, contrary to your early protestations, have now moved into active attack of Christianity and the priniciples of this board.

Consider this a first and last warning. Read the Board Purposes and Discussion Guidelines and should another violation of this nature occur, your account will be terminated.

Accusations in terms of the morality of God Himself, are nothing new and have been addressed countless times and in countless places, including our main board where thay can be referenced.

Dawkin's rhetoric would be one thing if it were simply words, however, words mean things and are designed to change thought and motivate actions.

We do not exist as a board to endorse or promote Dawkins, his atheism or his attacks upon Christianity, people of faith, or the rights of parents to raise and teach their children as they see fit absent the intervention of the State to dictate what may or may not be thought in this realm.

Other boards exist appropriate to the promotion of this type of thinking if you wish to utilize them. The purpose of this board is intentional limited in scope for the reasons explained in our primary documents.

Sincerely,

Bart

Whoa whoa whoa stop there. I was asked question "On what moral grounds does Dawkins base claim X". I answered the question with what Dawkins uses to support to use his claim. You can't just shun anybody who has a valid point on here - if that was the case I would have left ages ago but every reply to my posts I have seen have been valid points and I am the first to admit that. I find that religious forums are a great place for me to find out about the viewpoints of religious people. I don't have another way of finding out exactly what people believe. All you'd do by banning me is forcing me to not be able to look at both sides of the story, which is what you want non-Christians to do first and foremost. It makes sense to know about what you are deprecating does it not? I have said it once and I will say it again, I am not aggressive in my beliefs, and you have proved my earlier point by giving me a warning for answering somebody's question with a valid argument. That point is that as soon as you hear a valid argument, you shut off, put your hands in your ears and say "la la la la la" until I stop. I shan't be posting on here again, which is a shame for your colleagues who contributed rather nicely to the discussion. For a forum that states in its terms and conditions that those who "ignore all the evidence" aren't allowed, you don't worry about kicking anybody else out who hints at suggesting a point that might induce a debate. Good day.

David

Interesting take on Noah's flood davidp. Actually not really, but it is typical of fundamentalist Atheists such as Dawkins whose anti-religiousness seems to be based upon a hate towards religion. Lets not forget the likes of Stalin and Pol Pot took the view that religion was also malign and evil, and set out from that foundation to eradicate religious belief.

K

David,

I understand why you may feel that way, and I have been one of those engaging you to whom you have attributed valid points.

I understand that you answered a question directed to you.

If you go back and examine this thread, as I did before I issued my warning, which I assure you, as a moderator of this board, I can do and did, you'll find, as I did, many issues and points being directed to you and you being selective in answering them by engaging with one and then moving on to promote the book and its beliefs independent of many of the challenges.

You were warned, not banned summarily.

It's evident you're not a seeker in terms of the establishment of this board and so the warning is warranted.

If you believe you can interact within those constraints, you're welcome.

I assure you I am more than able to engage on this subject without sticking my fingers in my ears and do so extensively in other forums and contexts. You may PM me if you'ld like a link to them. You'l find there your beliefs to probably be in the majority and mine in the minority.

The issue here is the purpose and restraints of this board and as a moderator, without apology I am obligated to uphold them.

Regards,

Bart

The topic's original creator asked "Has anyone read this?" As the only one who appears to have read it, I am delighted to answer questions about it, and I urge you all to read it not only for the reason that it is eye-opening, but it gives you a good reference point to support your own beliefs (as in my case) or you can use it as a reference point to dissect and deprecate, which is what the Christian reader would do. It is not my aim to try and convert Christians to atheism, I am merely answering questions on a book which I have read and some others haven't.

I will also address this issue of "fundamental atheism". Dawkins addresses this directly in his book, and he says that one should not confuse passion with fundamentalism. Make of that what you will - Dawkins said it, not me.

I would be delighted to have some links if you have them. I don't have a problem with not posting on this particular forum any more. I have shown the greatest level of politeness, the greatest level of recognition, and the greatest level of respect, yet something has still made the grounds for an official warning. Shame.

pdavid, you seem to be taking issue to the board purpose. We are very upfront with it, and if you take exception to it, there are many other boards for debating and I would recommend people visit them if interested in debate and opinions of those with differing beliefs.

Please note it is not the norm that we allow non-Christians who are clearly decided on their beliefs to post. The board is targeted to a specific group, namely those who are Christian or those who are "truly seeking" (defined as those who have not strongly made up their mind that Christianity is not for them). Yet, we do allow the odd non-Christian to post if we feel positive contributions can be made with sensitivity and respect being maintained, and as long as we feel such contributions have a positive impact upon our apologetic Christian purpose.

This is simply the nature of how we run this board, and you are entitled to look for one more open to diverse public opinion rather than knocking the way this one is moderated.

K

pdavid wrote:I will also address this issue of "fundamental atheism". Dawkins addresses this directly in his book, and he says that one should not confuse passion with fundamentalism. Make of that what you will - Dawkins said it, not me.

Yes, Dawkins appears to want it both ways. He wants to point out atrocious events of the past perpetrated by religion or religious people to argue religion is bad; yet when one points to the may atrocities committed by those who thought religion was malign and evil as Dawkins does, it is somehow no longer relevant.

pdavid wrote:

David, on what moral basis does Dawkins judge God to be a "misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"?

I remember this passage well. He has recited it quite a few times as well. I will talk a bit about it. First off, he uses it as an argument against the idea that we get our morals from the bible. His belief is that we don't get our morals from scripture, and I agree. I am not a Christian, but I live a morally sound life. I will give you some passages here to show how he supports his claim.

...snip...

Dawkins frequently quotes passages like this in the bible, and shows that for every quote that one can find is support of this all-loving god, there is another which shows a god with those traits you see above.

All of this is to prove his point that we do not get our morals from the bible, neither do we need to get our morals from the bible. If we did, we would all be offering our daughters up for gang rape when requested.

Best regards,

David

David, with all due respect, you did not even attempt to answer my question. I know what Dawkins says about the Bible and God. I know that he thinks that we don't get our morals from the Bible, but my question was not where he doesn't get it from, it was where he DOES get it from.

He cannot judge God to be immoral unless he does so by some standard. Where does he get that standard from?

Can we move past the Christian-bashing and try to get into a real discussion here?

Dawkins does make a convincing argument. His point is that Christians base which parts of scripture to believe on independent criteria, criteria which is external to religious scripture. If they "cherry pick" which bits to call "allegories" and which bits to call "fact" then they must be using an independent decision-making process which is available to everybody.

This is just disingenuous from either you or Dawkins, or both. You cannot choose to accept certain parts of Scripture to argue against Christianity, and then offer up an external critique using your own opinion. If you have a proper internal critique of Scripture, then let's see it, or else this argument is anything but convincing. If you accept Scripture for the sake of argument, then you should accept all of it, not just certain parts.

I don't expect either you or Dawkins to know this, but there are very clear demarcations in Scripture that show exactly what literary style is appropriate. No serious theologians cherry-pick anything, they interpret Scirpture by using Scripture.

I don't wish to discuss Christianity, I wish to discuss the epistimological foundations of Dawkins beliefs. If you can engage with that, then I am sure that we will stay within the boundaries of the board guidelines.

So what you're saying is that it's my privilege to be able to post on this forum? Come on be reasonable. For a group of people who haven't read Dawkins' "The God delusion", you seem to know a lot about it. You can't just read a negative review and then concede that you don't need to read the book because you already know what it's like. The fact that it is bestseller on amazon (nowhere near as purchased as the Bible, I understand), would suggest that it has quite a few followers.

Why can I not have a standard, gentlemanly chat with a Christian? Why do you always seal the subject off and accuse me of "taking issue" or violating terms and conditions. I do my best when talking to Christians to choose my words carefully, and I find every time that your words can be as carefully chosen as possible, but the fact that I am not a Christian is the only thing that matters.

Once, just once, I would like to have a genuine talk with a Christian. The Christian would present their beliefs and explain them. I would be intrigued, and then present my beliefs and explain them. We would talk about the differences and why they are there. We back up our beliefs with what we feel is evidence, and ultimately the chances are that none of us would be converted, neither would any of us try to convert the other. The purpose would be to quench the human thirst for knowledge. I have a thirst for knowledge about religion, Christianity included. But when I try to find out about it, I am not told about actual Christian beliefs, rather I am told why I am on thin ice for daring to show my face in a Christian community when I am non-Christian. It needn't be exclusive. It needn't be a members only club.

So I ask you, do I have to pretend to be a Christian to find out what Christians genuinely believe?

David