Richard Dawkins

[°Leprechaun]

I vote Good. He seems reasonable in many ways. Although he is very controversial, I don't find him arrogant or even abrasive.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Richard Dawkins is neither a religious figure nor a philosopher. His contributions to debate on those subjects are largely political in character, and in my opinion skew heavily (but are not universally) negative. It should be noted that he's also far from an uncontroversially revered figure in his own world of ethology.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He, in my humble opinion, should stick to science.  His contributions to his field are original and enlightening.  I can't say the same for his religion books.

But of course, I'm biased.

[°Leprechaun]

The problem is that some religious people want to bring religion into the science class.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

And if Dawkins focused mainly on explaining why that's a bad idea then he'd be in the right.

[°Leprechaun]

Well, in the video on youtube, "the god delusion" he focuses on the harm of extreme religion.
I just finished watching it. He also brings out the point that there is zero evidence for religion.

[°Leprechaun]

Of course many scientists avoid getting involved directly in religious controversy and some do believe in God, but since science has historically been attacked by religious people, I think that it entirely appropriate for scientists to be critical of religion. Religion should not have the special protection that it has.

[°Leprechaun]

In many ways we have not gotten beyond the controversy of the Scopes monkey trial.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

That's a very simplistic outlook.

[°Leprechaun]

How many religions are based on math, logic, reason or science?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How many religions are based on math, logic, reason or science?

Pythagoreanism would seem to be a logical candidate.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

How many religions are based on math, logic, reason or science?

Exactly as many as ought to be.

[DC Al Fine]

I read The God Delusion and wasn't impressed. You're much better off reading Dennett if you want atheist polemics.

The main issues with it were:
a) He made bizarre assertions about history that were blatantly false
b) Spending pages and pages attacking strawman arguments for Christianity/God and then ignoring most of our top guys. I think he spent like two paragraphs on Aquinas, but a heck of a lot more on Tim LaHaye.

Of course many scientists avoid getting involved directly in religious controversy and some do believe in God, but since science has historically been attacked by religious people, I think that it entirely appropriate for scientists to be critical of religion. Religion should not have the special protection that it has.

Atheists are to history what Baptists are to biology.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Richard Dawkins likes to say that he would have been a Christian before the writing of Origin as, in his own opinion, God pre-Darwin was the best theory of how to explain 'design' in nature.

Dawkins is very fond of the notion of the 'design' in nature and its origin in natural selection, this comes clear if you ever read him or listen to him speak on biology. Yet this issue is not without controversy in evolutionary biology, a fact that his fanboys never seem to bring up.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Negative, should stay in the lab instead of engaging in atheist fundamentalism.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Negative, should stay in the lab instead of engaging in atheist fundamentalism.

Isn't Dawkins technically retired in his capacity as a scientist anyway? He's in his early seventies by now.

[bedstuy]

I don't see the point of the whole atheist genre of books and rhetoric. 

I think there's no evidence of God or Gods.  I've never heard a strong argument in favor of God or even a weak one.  But, I think people are religious out of bunch of non-logical reasons.  It's cultural, social and it makes people feel spiritual about life and peaceful about death.  That's not going to be argued away with logic.  Plus, I feel like if you get down to it, many people just aren't interested in thinking about whether or not God exists.  They ultimately don't want to critically question something they hold dear like that.  So, I think the Dawkins rhetorical strategy is a flawed enterprise.

I think the better way to cut back at a religion is to slowly question the more silly aspects of a religion and the areas where it clashes with modern ethics and lifestyle. 

[DemPGH]

How many religions are based on math, logic, reason or science?

Exactly as many as ought to be.

Both of these statements, as well as their implications, are one hundred percent correct, IMO. It's why faith and science on a philosophical level are not reconcilable.

Faith and myth hold truth / meaning for you, or they don't. They don't for me.

Negative, should stay in the lab instead of engaging in atheist fundamentalism.

Yes, yes, and I'm a "fundamentalist" historian, because I don't believe in the hydra, the cyclops, or people rising from the dead. Or this stuff:

[°Leprechaun]

I don't see the point of the whole atheist genre of books and rhetoric.  

I think there's no evidence of God or Gods.  I've never heard a strong argument in favor of God or even a weak one.  But, I think people are religious out of bunch of non-logical reasons.  It's cultural, social and it makes people feel spiritual about life and peaceful about death.  That's not going to be argued away with logic.  Plus, I feel like if you get down to it, many people just aren't interested in thinking about whether or not God exists.  They ultimately don't want to critically question something they hold dear like that.  So, I think the Dawkins rhetorical strategy is a flawed enterprise.

I think the better way to cut back at a religion is to slowly question the more silly aspects of a religion and the areas where it clashes with modern ethics and lifestyle.  

Well, one problem with religion which I have always found ironic is that it is so *divisive*; theists need to get their act together, stop fighting each other, worship the same god and leave atheists alone in the meantime. I see no useful purpose for theism, in so far as theism promotes ethical and honest living I will give credit where credit is due, but all to often theists fail to live up to their own principles.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

How many religions are based on math, logic, reason or science?

Exactly as many as ought to be.

Both of these statements, as well as their implications, are one hundred percent correct, IMO. It's why faith and science on a philosophical level are not reconcilable.

Irreconcilable in what can and should be a fairly benign way, however, I'd submit.

[DemPGH]

How many religions are based on math, logic, reason or science?

Exactly as many as ought to be.

Both of these statements, as well as their implications, are one hundred percent correct, IMO. It's why faith and science on a philosophical level are not reconcilable.

Irreconcilable in what can and should be a fairly benign way, however, I'd submit.

Yes, I promise to forego crusading!

I actually think the discussion can be fruitful, but I think the objectives of it should be adjusted from trying to convince each other (either science or religion is on the offense, it seems) to exchanging ideas. Science is about method first and body of knowledge second, and it really disagrees with faith, I think. Faith takes the view, I think, that knowledge is passively revealed, and science takes the view that it is actively built. Then there's the supernatural / natural cause aspect, so I think a lot can be exchanged, but maybe the objectives of the discussion could be adjusted. 

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

How many religions are based on math, logic, reason or science?

Exactly as many as ought to be.

Both of these statements, as well as their implications, are one hundred percent correct, IMO. It's why faith and science on a philosophical level are not reconcilable.

Irreconcilable in what can and should be a fairly benign way, however, I'd submit.

Yes, I promise to forego crusading!

I actually think the discussion can be fruitful, but I think the objectives of it should be adjusted from trying to convince each other (either science or religion is on the offense, it seems) to exchanging ideas. Science is about method first and body of knowledge second, and it really disagrees with faith, I think. Faith takes the view, I think, that knowledge is passively revealed, and science takes the view that it is actively built. Then there's the supernatural / natural cause aspect, so I think a lot can be exchanged, but maybe the objectives of the discussion could be adjusted. 

I'm in entire agreement with that.

[Meursault]

I'm what would be considered a 'militant atheist' by those who don't care to draw fine distinctions between different kinds of vocal atheists, but I'm contemptuous of the entire 'New Atheist' tendency represented by Dawkins, Dennett, &etc.

Primarily this is because what they're campaigning for is not atheism per se, but secular humanism, which is rooted in a series of Enlightenment-derived assumptions that are not necessary for atheism to function intellectually, i.e. the view that morality is basically objective and rooted in evolutionary psychology, that epistemology functions more or less the way it appears to - the relatively unsophisticated positivism of New Atheism cuts very close to naïve realism in a lot of ways, and so on.

What I'd like to see, but probably never will, is a revitalization of interest in Continental atheism, a tradition that includes Max Stirner, Arthur Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, the French existentialists, Heidegger, etc.

[The Mikado]

He also brings out the point that there is zero evidence for religion.

I fail to see how this is at all relevant and isn't just another attempt at empiricism trying to colonize the other intellectual disciplines with its own rules and arrogantly judging them failures for failing to meet the test it imposes.

[°Leprechaun]

He also brings out the point that there is zero evidence for religion.

I fail to see how this is at all relevant and isn't just another attempt at empiricism trying to colonize the other intellectual disciplines with its own rules and arrogantly judging them failures for failing to meet the test it imposes.

OK, can you tell me if there is non-empirical evidence for religion, by giving one or more examples?