Former Professor Clinton Richard Dawkins (atheist, quote, faith, God)

[And Why?]

I just finished reading 'The God Delusion'.

Those of you who are scientists must be ashamed of this fundamentalist atheism mostly in the abscence of real science.

I fear our finest theories have been overshadowed by this mostly science-less rant.

I don't understand the need for Dawkins to make this plethora of dogmatic overstatements. Science, through which I have become astonished through discovery, has become an innocent victim here.

For those who want to enter into serious dialogue, even Creationists, I want it known that we can move forward through understanding and appreciating our 'world view' differences and hopefully try and continue scientic discovery together without science trying to eliminate belief systems which transcend science (something it never set out to achieve).

I hope I speak for the moderate majority.

Best wishes.

[Ajeck]

It is unfortunate that Dawkins has a bad wrap in the theist community. Personally, many of his arguments make sense. The whole purpose of his book is to make non-questioning theists think out of the box. Its not perfect but its a good start for some.

As for him being a fundamentalist... he specifically spends time in his book to point out that he is not one. Yes, his passion may be seen as fundamentalism but that is wrong. He states that if the evidence ever supported another position; being a scientist, he would have to change his mind. To date there has been no real evidence that would change his mind. Just assumptions theist think they are clever in coming up with.

[And Why?]

Ajeck, did you read the sections about "the virus of the mind" and "memes" as his explanation for why people get "infected" by religion. Thats not science, its fundamentalism. Non-theists need to be able to look at these things with the same objectivity as creationists or anything else.

[GCSTroop]

Well, actually, I don't think Dawkins' book was meant to be scientific as much as it was philosophical. If you've ever read Bertrand Russell's "Why I'm Not A Christian," you'll realize that most of the arguments Dawkin's uses are basically reworded from Russell's "Why I'm Not a Christian."

In so much as the theory of memetics goes... Dawkins first introduced the theory of memetics in his 1970's best-seller The Selfish Gene. Though the theory of memetics is not scientifically provable, something I think Dawkins mentioned in both The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene, it is an apt and analogous way of looking at something. While there are actual "memeticists" in this day and age, and I think the idea makes wonderful sense, it is not scientific at all.

However, it is an excellent description of the way certain things take advantage of our genetic pre-disposition(s). It is also as theoretically balanced as something such as ego or super-ego. Though we probably will never find such things as an ego in any part of the brain, most psychologists work under the assumption that the ego exists, that the super-ego exists, etc... In that same capacity goes the theory of memetics.

[MontanaGuy]

I've read The God Delusion and I know alot of others on the forum have read it as well. He can sound condescending but I thought the book was well written and the reason that he's received so much criticism for it was because he made his points so well that it became a very popular book and that didn't sit well with many believers.

[And Why?]

GCSTroop I think we are singing from the same hymn book generally, and you are telling me information that I know very well. The theory of memetics espoused in his 1976 publication The Selfish Gene which was put forward as a theory within the bounds of biological science, is a long distance from the same theory put forward in The God Delusion. The meme, a term invented by Dawkins is put forward as a replicator, as in the gene to biological evolution compared to the meme to cultural evolution. The problem he has is that in the thirty years since the former publication, mainstream science has critiqued the theory to an extent that it simply can't be put forward without consideration of the points of criticism. Dawkins goes on to make factuous statements about memes and then uses those statements to explain the spread of religion. I had to laugh when I read a critique that stated "the evidence for memes is so tenuous, do we have to propose a meme for believing in memes in the first place?".

The point being, arguments such as memes were proffered by (at the time) the Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. I treasure some of Dawkins earlier works bringing complex science within the reach of the average person. However, when Dawkins moves outside of science to challenge a rather philisophical issue using this snake-oil-salesman pseudo scientific approach I cringe.

I just hope the rift he is clearly trying to create between science and religion does not lead to an elitist scientific community that seeks to exclude other world views. That would be of far greater detriment to science than anything it should fear from fundamentalism on the other side.

Just my view.

I know Dawkins is a hero to many because he is outspoken and dogmatic in his naturalism, but that shouldn't prevent you from being able to critique The God Delusion with the same rigour as an alternative view.

I guess I am just expressing my disappointment.

[elizabeth7]

Richard Dawkins is a militant atheist and no ribbons and wrapping will disguise that. A number of his friends and colleagues found The God Delusion a particular rant against anyone having the temerity to believe in a Supreme Creator, and wished to disassociate themselves from his unique 'take'.

He has referred to believers as 'hillbillies', so can hardly be described as balanced in his output. Despite his efforts, I read today that a belief in God or Spirit greater than ourselves is rising, world wide. The thought of the eminent Professor tearing his hair out at this piece of news brings a to my face.

[Ceece]

Originally Posted by elizabeth7

Richard Dawkins is a militant atheist and no ribbons and wrapping will disguise that. A number of his friends and colleagues found The God Delusion a particular rant against anyone having the temerity to believe in a Supreme Creator, and wished to disassociate themselves from his unique 'take'.

He has referred to believers as 'hillbillies', so can hardly be described as balanced in his output. Despite his efforts, I read today that a belief in God or Spirit greater than ourselves is rising, world wide. The thought of the eminent Professor tearing his hair out at this piece of news brings a to my face.

I doubt he is tearing his hair out as much as patting himself on the back for recognizing why it's happening.

And atheism is growing faster now than ever so...yeah.

I enjoyed "The God Delusion" but it wasn't scientific as much as sociological.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by And Why?

I just hope the rift he is clearly trying to create between science and religion does not lead to an elitist scientific community that seeks to exclude other world views. That would be of far greater detriment to science than anything it should fear from fundamentalism on the other side.

Just my view.

I know Dawkins is a hero to many because he is outspoken and dogmatic in his naturalism, but that shouldn't prevent you from being able to critique The God Delusion with the same rigour as an alternative view.

I guess I am just expressing my disappointment.

I liked The God Delusion if for no other reason than it took a "gloves off" approach to a subject too many people think is too sacred to criticize. I won't say that I agreed with every single iota of the book but I did, in large part, agree with many of the premises. It has been a while since I've read it and I no longer own the copy of it that I did have because a friend who borrowed it never gave it back.

While I certainly feel that The God Delusion is not beyond critique, I think many people would rather complain about it rather than put forth good points. The typical Christian apologetics community has already made about 50 or 60 books to ride on the coat-tails in defense of belief as though he started a five-alarm fire that every fire department needed to put out.

However, I will disagree with you by saying that I feel the rift he is creating or has created between science and the religious community is a necessary one. There is, in my opinion, no room for faith or religion when it comes to the boundaries of science. Attempting to interject a dogmatic viewpoint into the areas of the unknown to alleviate one's faith problem is absurd and non-scientific. It's a more elaborate "God of the Gaps" problem that men like Francis Crick, who can't even fart without mentioning God in scientific introspect, have posed as a non-necessary problem to the scientific community.

Good science has always and should always operate under the assumption of non-supernatural interference. If we consistently allow God and supernaturalism to interfere with science then all we have is crap. While I have no doubt that folks like Ken Miller and Francis Crick are good scientists and faithful believers, both Miller and Crick know the difference and the line between faith and science but sometimes refuse to admit to it depending on the crowd they're talking to.

What is bothersome about not separating faith from science is the absolutely stupid and mindless interjection of the Creationist's and Intelligent Design proponents (who operate under different names but are the same). If we allow science to take on the faith community with a mutual amount of agreement because it "hurts someone's feelings" otherwise, than we open the door to all sorts of ridiculous accounts including Noah's Ark as a viable explanation of dramatic extinction events, Adam and Eve as a viable creation account, and the Earth as a 6000 year-old playpen for a special needs child of the heavens to play with.

While Dawkins' mention of memetics as a viable explanation to how the idea of religion "infects" people is not necessarily scientific but merely an "If, then" statement - I can imaginatively agree with it but not on scientific bounds. I don't recall Dawkins mentioning that he felt it was a scientifically plausible answer but I don't have the book any longer to reference that. I do feel that in terms of the explanation of why religion "infects" most people but not all is well visualized and well thought out as an embodiment of memetics. If I'm not mistaken, he used the self-immolating moth as an example to express his opinion. Again, I don't believe he feels a "meme" will ever be found nor does he use it as a truly viable explanation with scientific support but rather as a reference both figurative and visual for people to grasp why certain ideas are rejected or accepted in different people's mind. One final thing, I also believe the words "infected" and "virus" were merely analogous references not to be taken literally.

[And Why?]

GSCTroop, you make some good points and I don't want to dismiss what may have some validity.

However, may I ask are you a scientist yourself? Do you think Dawkins has a mandate from the scientific community in regard to The God Delusion, and if so what are the statistics to support that? Do you think a non-evolutionist can work together with an evolutionist productively through mutual discovery? Do you believe in freedom of thought?