Whats your opinion of Richard Dawkins?

@mesquite,

N.B:
The book in fact discusses and present scientific proves in favor of creation and evolution in its own way:

CONTENTS OF THE BOOK:
Introduction with a Historical Perspective --Individual Versus Society -- Islamic Schools of Thought -- European Philosophy -- Greek Philosophy -- Hinduism -- Buddhism -- Confucianism -- Taoism -- Zoroastrianism -- The Question of Suffering -- Secular Viewpoints Examined -- The Concept of God among the Aborigines of Australia -- The Nature of Revelation -- Divine Revelation and Rationality -- Belief in the Unseen -- Al- Bayyinah: A Manifest Principle and Al-Qayyimah: An Everlasting Teaching -- The Quran and Cosmology -- Entropy and the Finite Universe -- The Quran and Extraterrestrial Life -- Life in the Perspective of Quranic Revelations: A Brief Introductory Chapter --

Origin of Life: Different Theories and Propositions -- The Jinn -- The Essential Role of Clay and Photosynthesis in Evolution -- Survival by Accident or Design? -- Chirality or Sidedness in Nature -- Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest -- A Game of Chess or a Game of Chance! -- The Future of Life on Earth -- Organic Systems and Evolution "

-- Unveiling of the "Unseen" by the Quran: A Historic Perspective -- Nuclear Holocaust -- Genetic Engineering -- The Plague -- The AIDS Virus -- Future of Revelation -- Attempts to Philosophically Justify the Finality of Non- Law-bearing Prophethood -- Jesus Versus Finality -- Epilogue Major issues which intrigue the modern mind are attempted to be incorporated in this fascinatingly comprehensive statute.

REVELATION, RATIONALITY, KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html

0 Replies

@Luv4AL hatred4non,

What is your relationship to Mirza Tahir Ahmad ?

0 Replies

If you could ask Richard Dawkins any question, what would it be?

(and hurry up, the window is closing)

2 Replies

@Eorl,

No takers...?

1 Reply

@Eorl,

Id ask him, Chunky or Smooth?

AFter his last book, "The Geatest Show on Earth" Ive re revised my opinion a teeny bit. He seems to have matured a bit and has left all that "atheism rocks" crap behind.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

Quote:

If you could ask Richard Dawkins any question, what would it be?

(and hurry up, the window is closing)

If there was an argument so circular that not even Richard Dawkins could argue it, would it still disprove God?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Yet more evidence that you either haven't read Dawkins or fail to understand the very plain English he speaks. Dawkins never tried to "disprove God". In his book The God Delusion, he makes very clear this is impossible, just as it's impossible to disprove fairies, leprechauns, or Vishnu. Dawkins isn't about disproving the existence of god. He's about not bothering with it. You are erecting a strawman. Not for the first time I may add.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Dawkins isn't about disproving the existence of god. He's about not bothering with it.

Come on Thomas, you are being silly. (Not to mention my last quip was a slightly lame attempt at humor).

Claiming that Dawkins isn't trying to "disprove God", and then comparing disproving God with disproving fairies (an argument that God is as real as fairies-- in essence an argument against the existence of God) is silly. Your claim that a book Dawkins is about "not bothering with" the existence of God is equally silly given that he writes books (and earns quite a bit of money) discussing just this topic.

I don't believe in God. I still find Dawkins intellectually inconsistent.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Claiming that Dawkins isn't trying to "disprove God", and then comparing disproving God with disproving fairies (an argument that God is as real as fairies-- in essence an argument against the existence of God) is silly.

Why? How is the existence of fairies easier to disprove than the existence of god? Can you even disprove the existence of fairies?

ebrown wrote:

Your claim that a book Dawkins is about "not bothering with" the existence of God is equally silly given that he writes books (and earns quite a bit of money) discussing just this topic.

Actually it's just one book -- The God Delusion. But fair enough, let me rephrase. This book is not about disproving the existence of god. It's about setting forth, and defending, the proposition that the existence of gods is impossible to disprove, but unlikely enough to be unworthy of bothering with in practice. Dawkins says the same about the existence of fairies. Do you find the revised statement still silly? If so, how is Richard Dawkins intellectually inconsistent for arguing it?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Comparing a belief in God with a belief in fairies is intended as an attack on religious belief (I don't think Dawkins would contest this statement given the title of his book).

I get his the point he is trying to make, but this comparison is valid only as a cheap shot at religious people. Given the role of faith in culture and the contributions of religion on culture and art and literature and the guidance religion gives on morality-- this is really a specious comparison.

I could compare a belief in Human Rights (which is no more supportable than a believe in God) to fairies in the same way. (The fact that many Atheists are moral absolutists always makes me chuckle-- althought that might be a topic for another thread).

Richard Dawkins makes leaps in logic that require quite a bit of the faith he is decrying.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Comparing a belief in God with a belief in fairies is intended as an attack on religious belief (I don't think Dawkins would contest this statement given the title of his book).

I agree Dawkins would agree. But you appear to be claiming something stronger. You seem to say that the case for believing in god is somehow better than the case for believing in fairies, even though you end up rejecting them both. Does that characterize your position fairly? If so, what makes you think that?

ebrown p wrote:

I get his the point he is trying to make, but this comparison is valid only as a cheap shot at religious people.

I agree it's a shot, but how is it cheap? How is it any cheaper than an analogous shot at fairies, bigfoot, or children's imaginary friends would be?

ebrown p wrote:

Given the role of faith in culture and the contributions of religion on culture and art and literature and the guidance religion gives on morality-- this is really a specious comparison.

Even if the premise "given ... " was true, it wouldn't provide any valid reason for believing in god. Peer pressure has never been a good argument for believing anything.

ebrown p wrote:

I could compare a belief in Human Rights (which is no more supportable than a believe in God) to fairies in the same way.

I suppose you could, but you would be mistaken. To believe in human rights, as I do by the way, is to take a stand on normative questions. To believe in gods, by contrast, is to take a stand on positive questions. Normative and positive questions are categorically incomparable. And there's no reason why people couldn't take either position on one, and either position on the other, independently.

ebrown p wrote:

Richard Dawkins makes leaps in logic that require quite a bit of the faith he is decrying.

Could you cite some of leaps, preferably with a page number? Shame on me if I'm wrong, but I can't shake the feeling that you're confidently talking about a book you haven't read.

1 Reply

The argument for a belief in God is that it works better than no beliefs. If that argument is accepted then the promotion of the belief in God is justified and the promotion of no belief is not unless such a promoter wants things to not work as good as they might.

What each individual thinks is neither here nor there.

0 Replies

@dazza 480,

Quote:

Whats your opinion of Richard Dawkins?

The man is basically the answer to the question:

Quote:

Is there such a thing as an idiot with a 180 IQ?

You can see that easily enough in Ben Stein's film.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I have a copy of the God Delusion, and have read much of it (I will admit to not making it through it all).

My biggest problem with Dawkins is his zealousness to portray religion as something bad, which I am claiming is quite impossible if you don't posit a universally applicable view of good and bad).

His virus metaphor, which has intentionally negative connotation is particularly wrong. It is hard for a unbiased observer to argue that religion hasn't been an important part of the advances of society and has had influences that you and I would agree are beneficial.

So there are two problem... First, is that it is unclear whether he intends his value judgments to apply only to modern Western society, or whether they reveal some universal truths about the human condition. In the first case they are trivial... in the second case (which seems to me more likely) they are "religious" in the sense they appeal to the same sort of unprovable universal truth that he is arguing against.

Second is his zeal against what is clear a part of human nature. The virus explanation is his attempt to get around the fact that religion is undeniably human-- he is trying to cast it as some foreign influence. The big difference of course is that a real virus can be measured and counted. Real viruses have mass and can even be seen in a microscope.

Please explain the difference between a meme and a fairy.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown wrote:

So there are two problem... First, is that it is unclear whether he intends his value judgments to apply only to modern Western society, or whether they reveal some universal truths about the human condition.

Apparently his discussion of moral universals happened in a part of the book that you didn't read. His position is neither. Instead, drawing on empirical research from Harvard's Marc Hauser, Dawkins argues that whatever his personal value judgments are, people's approach to moral questions is fundamentally the same across cultures, largely independent from their religion or lack thereof. You can disagree with Dawkins of course, but to say that his position is unclear only reveals your ignorance of what he actually says in the book.

ebrown p wrote:

Second is his zeal against what is clear a part of human nature. The virus explanation is his attempt to get around the fact that religion is undeniably human-- he is trying to cast it as some foreign influence. The big difference of course is that a real virus can be measured and counted. Real viruses have mass and can even be seen in a microscope.

You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins's analogy is with a computer virus? The analogy is that religion runs on human brains as computer viruses run on computers. This distinction removes what you say is "the big difference". You can't count a computer virus, or weigh it, or see it in a microscope.

ebrown wrote:

Please explain the difference between a meme and a fairy.

A meme is "an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture" (Webster online). A fairy is "a mythical being of folklore and romance usually having diminutive human form and magic powers" (Webster Online again.) The myths about fairies are memes, just like the myths about God and Jesus are. But the fairies themselves, are beings with well-defined characteristics, which people could in principle search for and recognize. People may conceivably believe in them or not. Same as with gods, including Jahwe.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Gee--I thought a fairy was one of those chaps who had perfected the art of playing a musical instrument and used scented aftershave and squirted a puff from a fragrance dispenser down the front of his trousers before venturing onto the social networking scene.

I have never searched for such beings.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Sorry FM, couldn't bring myself to do it.

Window closed now.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Dawkins argues that whatever his personal value judgments are, people's approach to moral questions is fundamentally the same across cultures, largely independent from their religion or lack thereof.

This is a religious assertion.

Quote:

You do realize, don't you, that Dawkins's analogy is with a computer virus? The analogy is that religion runs on human brains as computer viruses run on computers. This distinction removes what you say is "the big difference". You can't count a computer virus, or weigh it, or see it in a microscope.

So its a metaphor of a metaphor.

It is even worse... first a computer virus assumes that the computer has a purpose. If a computer evolved with random behavior (with or without natural selection), then whatever the computer did would (by definition) be the natural behavior of a computer. Of course, the reason I say my computer has a "virus", rather than just suggesting my computers behavior has somehow changed, is because my computer was designed to work in the way I expect (given I bought it with specific purposes in mind).

Computer viruses are made by an intelligence external to the computer and external to the environment it was designed to run in. The creator of a computer virus has a different purpose in mind then the owner, user or designer of the computer.

This is horrible metaphor for "ideas" in general, or for religion.

Quote:

A meme is "an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture"

This is a very valueless definition-- in this case, example of memes would include fashion, words, any moral value, songs, art, literature and millions of other things that our culture is based upon. If "memes" are just ideas, the very act of thinking becomes religious.

This is not how I think Dawkins uses the term. There is no scientific definition or measurement of "memes" yet Dawkins not only insists the word means something specific, but he also uses it (in a circular way) to base his arguments on religion.

Some people, as a natural part of religion, see things they can't explain in their world view, and attribute them to God (or spirits or whatever supernatural phenomena is available).

Dawkins sees things he can't explain in his world view (like the effect, positive and negative of reliation). He attributes them to memes.

I

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

Its been a matter of DAwkins "style" to be abusive to people of faith. Several of his books are not anti-religious in nature and the ones that are , are just immature attempts at being clever. His public personna has always been as some "deep intellectual who has a pipeline to some kind of truth that only atheists can obtain"

His jumps in logic are similar in kind to those that we have gotten used to herein by some who claim that "Christianity has been the eentire source of our culture and our science" Different message , but same envelope.

To fully review his body of work , one must really read his latest books to see how, at least in print, hes set aside his boring approach at "beating up "on the folks of faith. Here hes done what first attracted me to his early writing like the "Blind Watchmaker".

In the "ANcestors TAle" and the "Greatest Show on Earth" Hes done a nice bit of compilation of the important evidence that makes the concept of evolution theory so complete. He takes the mass of phylogennetic data and geological evidence and attempts to present it in a fashion that drives his argument compellingly forward (AND) he doesnt waste any time with his "nyah nyah -God never lived " phase.

Im glad that, lately he realizes that we will probably have to leave a portion of each generation to live in a world of superstition and factless dogma. Defiant ignorance is still revered in several countries and in Texas, and DAwkins arguments are a little too "high end" to reach that audience. He publically argues in a fashion that assumes that his targets of derision even understand of what the **** hes speaking.
When some empty headed Texas school board director publically expresses the need to teach creationism right along side of evolutionary theory in science class, lets me know that if we look back carefully, we can still see the batch of caves wherein we started out. DAwkins is not gonna be succeesful at changing these guys minds, so Im glad that hes changed his target readership a bit. (Hes gotten away from writing "love fests" for fellow atheits and is concentrating on the mass of evidence that show that hes actually one of the greater minds working on the subject of history of Science.

1 Reply

There are two basic and large problem swhich most modern people have with religion, i.e. evolution(ism), and the so-called "Problem of Evil".

The problem of evil is much the larger of the two and Dawkins is totally hung up on it.

Evolution has basically been overtaken by events and is in the process of going away.

http://able2know.org/topic/44472-2#post-1153474

The problem of evil has numerous formulations and all hinge on the idea of omnipotence:

Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people? (Most Common)
Why would an all-powerful and well-intentioned God create biting flies, mosquitoes, chiggers, ticks,funnel-web spiders, disease organisms etc. i.e. the cretures of Pandora's box?
If the son of God actually came to this planet 2000 years ago, how did the American Indians go 1500 years without even hearing about it? Does that mean that God basically doesn't give a rat's ass about American Indians?
Why would an all-powerful and well-intentioned God allow people like Hitler, Stalin, or SlicKKK KKKlinton to ever rise to power in nations?

Again all of these things hinge on what exactly the word "omnipotent" or "all-powerful" is supposed to mean. If you mean "Having all the power which anybody could possibly imagine" which is the common idea, then conundrums are unavoidable. If you mean having all the power that there actually is in reality, there are no conundrums.

It seems obvious enough to me that neither God nor anything or anybody else in the spirit realm has much power to act in this physical world that we inhabit while we live. Moreover in ancient times, there were at least ways to get information across between the two realms (prophets, oracles, "familiar spirits" such as the tale of the "witch of Endor", electrostatic devices like the "ark" etc.). In our age those things no longer exist and like Jesus noted, we know the spirit realm only through faith.

There is also a question of explaining what appear to be ass-hole kinds of things which you read about Jehovah doing or commanding Israelites to do in the Old TEstament and Dawkins is particularly hung up on that aspect of it.
That also is a question of omnipotence (Why would an omnipotent God allow the phone lines to go down...) and the best starting point for that one is still Julian Jaynes' "Origin of Consciousness". Those things occur during a time period during which communication with the spirit world was in a process of breakdown. The most extreme case of that sort of thing to be found is Homer's Iliad.

1 Reply

Whats your opinion of Richard Dawkins?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know