Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dawkins - Nature of Belief
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1 of 32 (414607)
08-05-2007 9:55 AM


From a recent Guardian interview.
Dawkins relationship with Robert Winston (a famous Jewish biologist) I found particularly interesting. It is hinted at a few times during the initial course of the interview.
Also the protected nature of belief/religion is a key theme.
http://download.guardian.co.uk/...ceExtra_RichardDawkins.mp3
Stay Happy
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by iceage, posted 08-06-2007 2:15 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 08-06-2007 11:39 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 3 of 32 (414782)
08-06-2007 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by iceage
08-06-2007 2:15 AM


The link provide also had a second segment of some fellow criticizing Dawkin's recent book
I missed that. I will check it out.
Also he went on that science and religion seek to explain different areas of inquiry and knowledge. All well and good i suppose, however he ignores history and the large shared area that religion and science claim.
Very much along the Gould line of argument.
It seems to me that wherever religion presumes or states God/gods to have, or have had, any role in the physical universe they immediately make claims that are open to scientific investigation.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by iceage, posted 08-06-2007 2:15 AM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 08-06-2007 11:47 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 8 of 32 (414794)
08-06-2007 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
08-06-2007 11:47 AM


Re: The question is how to determine the cause.
The question is whether or not an act of God could be distinguished from a natural event.
Yes. I think I agree. I don't think science can disprove God in any way.
The most naturalistic answers can do in that respect is demonstrate that there is no NEED or requirement for God to have a physical role.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 08-06-2007 11:47 AM jar has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 23 of 32 (415739)
08-11-2007 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2007 6:41 PM


Nonetheless it's plain to see that religion is a net negative in today's society, regardless of whether or not being religious was a survival benefit for cavemen.
I don't see how religion itself could be viewed in a negative way anymore than I could anything else. I think its what people do to religion that makes it bad.
Dawkins view (and my own) would be that religion encourages absolute yet irrational conclusions which are effectively unarguable with if 'faith' is taken as having any relevance at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2007 6:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024