Reply
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 05:09 pm
Dawkins, in his book "The God Delusion" expresses his admiration for the German-American Christian existentialist philosopher and theologian, Paul Tillich.
Dawkins ges on to express the view that if all religious people were like Tillich the world be a better place, and that his animosity is only directed against religious people who make mischief.
This is why Dawkins' own book, The God Delusion, can be read as a metaphor for the Bible: both books support many parallel themes, including the lineage of the prophets, metempsychosis, the idea of original flaw, among others.
Dawkins is often used as a conceptual battering ram by atheists and scientismists against religion. Though the true picture is not quite as black and white as these groups would like to think.
@JohnJonesCardiff,
many times even the greatest of minds makes the dummest of blunders. Look at Newton, he was a firm believer in transmutation without understanding a jot about atomic theory.
The "philosophy of science" is like the Philosophy of sex, its good to first be a participant in the whole thing. Dawkins comes from some really decent research , his public view on religion is a brick in the road of his personal cred . He should just keep working on his "genes first" theories and shut the **** up about his personal views on
religion. IMHO.
@JohnJonesCardiff,
Quote:Dawkins is often used as a conceptual battering ram by atheists and scientismists against religion.
Not really. He may
see himself as "a battering ram", but IMO as an atheist, "atheism" is basically the
label given for a
reaction against the mythical anthropomorphic father figure/creator of the bible. Atheists basically can't be bothered with fairy stories about gods. However this is not to say that atheists discount the concept of "spirituality". I seem to remember Sam Harris (
The End of Faith) making that point.
I believe Tillich's conventional "Christian" critics accuse him of "pantheism". Since panthism, and spirituality have a certain affinity with esoteric thinking about "existence" it is easy to see where Dawkins thoughts are wandering on the matter.
What the f*ck is a scientismist? Sheesh . . . is English really that difficult?
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
What the f*ck is a scientismist? Sheesh . . . is English really that difficult?
ah yes... scientismists.
Look, down that sleet driven alley, past the gloom-shrouded, numberless doors, to the impenetrable black, wherein, the scientismist dwells with the devil.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
many times even the greatest of minds makes the dummest of blunders. Look at Newton, he was a firm believer in transmutation without understanding a jot about atomic theory.
The "philosophy of science" is like the Philosophy of sex, its good to first be a participant in the whole thing. Dawkins comes from some really decent research , his public view on religion is a brick in the road of his personal cred . He should just keep working on his "genes first" theories and shut the **** up about his personal views on
religion. IMHO.
Great idea transmutation. Who, but Newton, and those matching his talents, could have thought that one element can change into another. Why, the idea was groundbreaking.
@JohnJonesCardiff,
OIC . . . your problem is not with the English language, which you gleefully butcher, it's with good sense.
@JohnJonesCardiff,
JohnJonesCardiff wrote:
Look, down that sleet driven alley, past the gloom-shrouded, numberless doors, to the impenetrable black, wherein, the scientismist dwells with the devil.
You really are a fuckwit. Or maybe a mental patient.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace