Dawkins - Nature of Belief

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.mp3Stay HappyEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As usual Dawkin's is clear and concise. I like his point that there is not several cultural relative versions of truth. The Kennewick man debacle is a good example. The proposed reburying of Kennewick man would have been a blow for scientific investigation and our knowledge of our common heritage.I share Dawkin's puzzlement concerning the nebulous expression of what God is that is often offered by more sophisticated theologians.The link provide also had a second segment of some fellow criticizing Dawkin's recent book. His critique was anemic, claiming that staunch atheists criticize the book as much as theists. Perhaps, but so what.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.

I missed that. I will check it out. 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.

Its interesting that Sir. Richard talks of a "shifting zeitgeist" and that there is something in the air that changes. He is referring to a current of human awareness, of course...but the term zeitgeist means, literally...

n. - Zeitgeist -- (the spirit of the time; the spirit characteristic of an age or generation)

​

Spirit (Holy Spirit) or spirits cannot be scientifically investigated---yet characteristics can.

​

Like many of you here at EvC, Dawkins is a passionate and zealous proponent of logic over capricious and/or arbitrary belief. For him, there is simply no other proper way to explain the world that we live in!

​

He does note, however, that even though religious men such as The Arch Bishop of Canterbury are wrong it does not imply that they are delusional.

​

In religion, God is explained as knowable by some. He is also self described as I Am that I AM. For Dawkins, the core truth and necessary assertion of belief itself is grounded in testing, replication, and independent verification.

​

I respect the man and believe that he is being honest.

​

I have heard countless theologians, (many who earn a living off of God and find many of them to be less honest than I perceive Sir. Richard to be.

​

My beliefs remain unchanged in regards to God, but my belief in the integrity of humanity increases when men such as Richard Dawkins are allowed to express themselves.

​

---

Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them.
* * * * * * * * * *
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”--General Omar Bradley
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Homer Simpson: Sometimes, Marge, you just have to go with your gut!
Marge: You *always* go with your gut! How about for once you listen to your brain?

The question is whether or not an act of God could be distinguished from a natural event.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jarNot if the forces used were the same as operate within the universe.However we can ask if there is any real difference between a world that operates without a God and one whose God operates from within using natural laws.

And that is a valid question, one where most any answer is also acceptable.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

jarYet in the scenario I mentioned the God would have to be no different than the world itself. Think Gaia on the scale of the universe.

Not at all side. However I have no problem with the universe being one aspect of GOD, a subset.The difference is that in your Gaia scenario all there would be is GOD, while I see GOD as creating whatever the basic forces were that brought this universe into existence, and who continues to intervene selectively. Those interventions though may not be distinguishable from natural events and the methods used may be those same basic processes and forces that were part of creation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So....How Do You Know It Is God?

You can't.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So out of all the religious people the world over who claim to haveheard from God, 0% actually did? Just because your or I don't know? How can we assert this?If only one person in all of History actually did hear from God and know beyond a reasonable doubt that it was God they heard, your assertion would be challenged.nOur mission now is to find this worm and redirect our question so as to ask how do we know that he knew God?Of course, even if he did know God, that does not get everybody else off the hook....unless God grants mulligans or unless belief is irrelevant.

That is not what I said. I said that we cannot know if they actually heard from GOD. My assertions get challenged regularly. LOLThe issue is with your assertion that "...one person in all of History actually did hear from God and know beyond a reasonable doubt that it was God they heard..."They may well believe, and even have a high degree of confidence, they may even believe beyond a "reasonable (to that individual) doubt", but the question remains, "How does the person know it is GOD?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I know Dawkins occasionally touches on religion from a natural point of reference. I believe he does so, because he has to.The reason why is because these kinds of affinities are so prevalent in all cultures and in all times, that a satisfactory answer is hoped to be gleaned.Obviously the fact that he is a strict naturalist, he can only answer the question in a way that is compatible with nature. He is restricted by this.I am curious to know why he is so passionately against religiosity when religious affinities, if we all were to agree they derive from some natural predilection, are as natural as any biological function.What are some of his arguments for the reason why belief in the divine exist?

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt