But he doesn't preach as such. The problem is most people 'of faith' just find it very hard to deal with what he's saying.He doesn't ever say 'There is NO God, FACT!' he says that we cannot teach children that the Bible is the truth and as a preference over science until there is conclusive testable proof offered.
(
maiden is filmed before a live studio audience,
Fri 18 May 2012, 10:29,
archived)
I think a lot of people do find him a bit preachyPersonally, I just find him to be somewhat smug and patronising. For me, it's more about him than what he actually has to say. Mind you, I only read about 20 pages of God Delusion before getting bored and haven't read any of his other works, so I'm probably not best qualified to comment!
(
Wasp Box like a nervous random stranger at a glory hole,
Fri 18 May 2012, 10:36,
archived)
I've not even read any of Dawkin's stuff but a lot of what people say about him is more about his personality than what he is actually saying.I believe this is mostly down to bad press and the way the media lay siege to him every time he's on television and maybe he doesn't deal with that as well as he should it is very difficult and testing though to debate and discuss with closed-minded people which is for the most part what he's doing.
( maiden is filmed before a live studio audience,
Fri 18 May 2012, 10:42,
archived)
My problem with him is that he seems wilfully ignorant of human nature.He argues for rationality, but can't comprehend how and why we've developed irrationally. I find the likes of Desmond Morris' anthropology far more interesting, even though he's an equally eccentric character in himself.
Dawkins, particularly in his earlier work, has a go at religion for causing wars and oppressive regimes. When in those cases of extremism it seems to me it's just a tool used by some unpleasant and ambitious individuals to gather power.
The best argument I can see against the principles of any religion is a simple statement of how people behave. "If religion didn't exist, someone would have had to have invented it". The implication, of course, being that someone did.
(Dawkins, particularly in his earlier work, has a go at religion for causing wars and oppressive regimes. When in those cases of extremism it seems to me it's just a tool used by some unpleasant and ambitious individuals to gather power.
The best argument I can see against the principles of any religion is a simple statement of how people behave. "If religion didn't exist, someone would have had to have invented it". The implication, of course, being that someone did.
joefish It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:22,
archived)
"He argues for rationality, but can't comprehend how and why we've developed irrationally."Except for his many attempts to explain how concepts like altruism and religion might have evolved and developed in social environments...he's only been working in that field since about 1976 but let's not let that get in the way of criticising his character.
[edit] Just go and read his wikipedia page - most of his work in the field of evolutionary biology has been dedicated to investigating the "irrational" behaviour of altruism - helping others without expectation of reward. If spending most of your career studying why people are nice to each other is being "wilfully ignorant of human nature", then yep, well done, you've got him bang to rights.
([edit] Just go and read his wikipedia page - most of his work in the field of evolutionary biology has been dedicated to investigating the "irrational" behaviour of altruism - helping others without expectation of reward. If spending most of your career studying why people are nice to each other is being "wilfully ignorant of human nature", then yep, well done, you've got him bang to rights.
emvee cruor deo cruoris,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:28,
archived)
And yet after all that still considers that faith is the meme equivalent of a 'virus' to be 'eradicated',rather than, say, his 'meme' equivalent of a redundant organ or some other piece of genetic junk from our evolutionary past, which is where logic would ordinarily take his argument.
( joefish It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks,
Fri 18 May 2012, 15:12,
archived)
I don't buy that all wars have been caused purely by religion, even the Crusades was chiefly about feudalism and controlling very profitable trade routes and resources from the East.
Religion has always been used as a political tool to blindfold the masses into believing that killing other people is the right and correct thing to do and that laying their life down in the name of their God will buy them a ticket to their own personal heaven. This has always been the case from the Mayans, Egyptians, ancient Greeks, Romans, Vikings etc. all ebleiving that laying their life down in war will sercure them a respected place in Heaven, Valhalla, Elysium etc.
Religion is an important part of all societies from the very first primitive communities it was a way of explaining the rain, thunder and lightning, volcanoes, fire, tidal waves etc. and it worked to help people become aware of those dangers but as science has improved so as our understanding of our environment and why these things happen. But still religion evolved as a form of power and politics in which some people latched onto and used it to add controls and constraints to their societies as a form of law and order.
So it's unquestionable to deny that religion hasn't had it uses throughout history, however thesedays I think it's becoming more and more politically driven and is trying to hold society back rather than allow it to advance.
(Religion has always been used as a political tool to blindfold the masses into believing that killing other people is the right and correct thing to do and that laying their life down in the name of their God will buy them a ticket to their own personal heaven. This has always been the case from the Mayans, Egyptians, ancient Greeks, Romans, Vikings etc. all ebleiving that laying their life down in war will sercure them a respected place in Heaven, Valhalla, Elysium etc.
Religion is an important part of all societies from the very first primitive communities it was a way of explaining the rain, thunder and lightning, volcanoes, fire, tidal waves etc. and it worked to help people become aware of those dangers but as science has improved so as our understanding of our environment and why these things happen. But still religion evolved as a form of power and politics in which some people latched onto and used it to add controls and constraints to their societies as a form of law and order.
So it's unquestionable to deny that religion hasn't had it uses throughout history, however thesedays I think it's becoming more and more politically driven and is trying to hold society back rather than allow it to advance.
maiden is filmed before a live studio audience,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:36,
archived)
sorry youve lost me, how did it help people become aware of those dangers?
(,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:53,
archived)
Just talking off the top of my head, so feel free to throw that bit away.I suppose it didn't really make people aware of those dangers but tried to explain them probably for some control reasons. "The mountain thunders with fire, give me gold to appease the Gods!" that type of thing.
My main point was that religion as been a part of society since early communities, I kind of get there is a round about sort of way.
(My main point was that religion as been a part of society since early communities, I kind of get there is a round about sort of way.
maiden is filmed before a live studio audience,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:56,
archived)
There's a good analogy by Douglas Adams where he talks about throwing out the baby with the bathwaterThere were some islands (I forget the name) where they had planted their crops according to the regligious calendar for centuries, then westerners came and laughed at such superstition. They supplied the islanders with new seeds and fertilisers and promised that they would have four or five times the yield if they switched to western methods. And for a couple of years they did have massively high yields, but then they dropped, because the fields were overworked. Eventually they went back to the old "religious" methods because they worked.
Essentially, religions were a good way of codifying things that people needed to know to survive, but they were also a good way of codifying a whole load of bullshit. The trick is to extract the good bits and abandon the rest.
(Essentially, religions were a good way of codifying things that people needed to know to survive, but they were also a good way of codifying a whole load of bullshit. The trick is to extract the good bits and abandon the rest.
emvee cruor deo cruoris,
Fri 18 May 2012, 12:08,
archived)
I can agree with that. I'm not anti-religion per se just the dogmatism aspect of it.whether you could actually separate the two is another issue.
( maiden is filmed before a live studio audience,
Fri 18 May 2012, 12:13,
archived)
If an encyclopedia was wrong 90% of the time, no-one would bother using it.I think it's quicker to just assume it's all bullshit and start again from scratch. All the stuff about being good to each other is pretty much hard-wired in anyway and I'm not going to be planting any crops in the holy land any time soon
(,
Fri 18 May 2012, 13:03,
archived)
For example, this was reported on 24 Feb 2012www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
It's exactly the same argument as laid out in The God Delusion, published in 2006. It's emphatically not news that Dawkins thinks this way, but it's symptomatic of how he's portrayed in the media.
For anyone who sat through the whole debate between him and Rowan Williams, it was mostly two exceedingly polite men mostly agreeing with each other a lot and agreeing to disagree on a few matters, but there's got to be a story about an arrogant atheist in there somewhere.
(It's exactly the same argument as laid out in The God Delusion, published in 2006. It's emphatically not news that Dawkins thinks this way, but it's symptomatic of how he's portrayed in the media.
For anyone who sat through the whole debate between him and Rowan Williams, it was mostly two exceedingly polite men mostly agreeing with each other a lot and agreeing to disagree on a few matters, but there's got to be a story about an arrogant atheist in there somewhere.
emvee cruor deo cruoris,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:24,
archived)
This is a good pointDawkins is also a lot better when he's not dealing with the lunatic fringe - that brings out the worst in him, making him join the lunatics.
Also, Rowan Williams is far more intelligent than the average person who tries to debate Dawkins, and Dawkins knows that.
(Also, Rowan Williams is far more intelligent than the average person who tries to debate Dawkins, and Dawkins knows that.
Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:35,
archived)
I've read about half a dozen of his books, including God DelusionWhen he's doing evolutionary biology, he's great. But God Delusion was preachy and smug. A lot of it was reasonable viewpoint but a lot of it was 'if you disagree with me, you're a moron'.
( Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:33,
archived)