As I have said elsewhereI think Dawkins is happy for people to believe anything they like. It's human nature for people to believe in any number of a million different things and I doubt he believes he can stop that (in fact, he writes about possible ways such belief systems may have arisen).
However, why should he not be vocal about his views and try to convince others to take them on board? Isn't that what religion does constantly?
(However, why should he not be vocal about his views and try to convince others to take them on board? Isn't that what religion does constantly?
Mystery_Bob,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:27,
archived)
There would be no problem if he didn't mind religion doing it toobut he says that they should be stopped whilst his message be preached, for example, in schools.
I am not in favour of either camp, but the support for Dawkins by people who are pleased to see fundamentalists shouted down appalls me, since he IS a fundamentalist.
(I am not in favour of either camp, but the support for Dawkins by people who are pleased to see fundamentalists shouted down appalls me, since he IS a fundamentalist.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:37,
archived)
It always eems to come back to the word "fundamantalist"but a fundamentalist is somebody who cannot change his view. He has a belief system that will not alter, regardless of whatever anyone else says.
Dawkins position is not one of fundamentalism. He says, "I have looked at the evidence and this is what I conclude." His conclusion is that the likelihood of there being a God is very small.
He may argue this passionately and articulately, but that does not make him a fundamentalist. Hey may offend and annoy people along the way, but that is not fundamentalism.
Should new evidence be uncovered that throws his argument into doubt, he would amend his conclusions and possibly change his mind. That is not fundamentalism.
He lays out his reasoning and explains why he thinks what he thinks and invited others to debate with him - that is not fundamentalism.
I'd love to continue debating more, but unfortunately I have to get to the shops before they close.
(Dawkins position is not one of fundamentalism. He says, "I have looked at the evidence and this is what I conclude." His conclusion is that the likelihood of there being a God is very small.
He may argue this passionately and articulately, but that does not make him a fundamentalist. Hey may offend and annoy people along the way, but that is not fundamentalism.
Should new evidence be uncovered that throws his argument into doubt, he would amend his conclusions and possibly change his mind. That is not fundamentalism.
He lays out his reasoning and explains why he thinks what he thinks and invited others to debate with him - that is not fundamentalism.
I'd love to continue debating more, but unfortunately I have to get to the shops before they close.
Mystery_Bob,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:00,
archived)
A religious belief is generally "I have looked at the options and this is what I conclude" also.Dawkins is NOT open to a God - have you not read the book? Sometimes he says he is, but he is not.
The problem I have is not that he states his conclusion, but that he says that anyone with a different conclusion is wrong.
Any religion, and one who questions the idea that we are a God free society is, in his words, ignorant.
This is fundamentalism.
(The problem I have is not that he states his conclusion, but that he says that anyone with a different conclusion is wrong.
Any religion, and one who questions the idea that we are a God free society is, in his words, ignorant.
This is fundamentalism.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:22,
archived)
Nobut often it is the evangelical religions that have most mass influence.
( Mystery_Bob,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:01,
archived)