h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I wanted to add another couple of questions - well, maybe just the one:

"Unfortunately, because he hates religion so much (and his stated intention is to convert people to atheism), his reasoning is often suspect, his knowledge of theology is lacking, and he wilfully misrepresents faith. It is a shame that a leading Oxford professor is biased in his arguments, I was able to reject some of his arguments as ridiculous rather than really challenging."

Would you care to elaborate?

Sorry if I'm opening a Pandora's Box here, but I'm interested in your views.

Yes, I will reply - but not able to respond immediately to all posts/replies.

It is true that if Dawkins keeps saying evolution will lead to atheism, religious people will be even less likely to let their kids study it in school.

Interesting point...but it raises another issue. In the UK at least, parents aren't allowed to opt their children out of lessons - whether Science or Religious Education.

I myself have a beef with my own children having to devote valuable curriculun time to Christianity (yes, it *is* almost all Christianity. A token mosque visit was cancelled) The argument put to me is that childern should be taught religion, so that they can make an informed choice later.

Hmm. So what else should they be given a choice on? Whether two plus two equals four or five?

OK - I'm being silly. But what should Dawkins do? Keep quiet about the fact that at all turns, real world evidence makes the whole idea of god simply barmy?

No but they could join lobby groups who wants creationism taught in schools.

Well, that's true. But maybe we should maintain a naive faith that people can be beaten by the truth.

That said...obviously the argument that evolution = atheism has no place in Science lessons. No - that argument should be made in RE lessons. . Currently, Atheism is specifically one subject that can *not* be addressed in RE. Anyone fancy joining a lobby?

Not really, then we just get more of the "atheism is just another religion" thing.
I don´t know much about what Dawkins has specifically done in his tv-shows I haven´t watched them. But anything saying specifically that evolution leads to atheism would be a bad idea. He just needs to point out that God is not needed for it.

I suppose it raises an issue about what is Dawkins' agenda. He certainly thinks that religion is 'A Bad Thing' and is using evolution to discredit it. Maybe that is dangerous.

There's a slightly separate argument that religion is a muddy way of thinking which is counterproductive to science - ie religion has no place in the geneticist's thinking. But surely this has to be extended to say that it has no place in *any* thinking?

I agree that there are potential dangers - but I'm really not sure there's any alternative to honestly nailing one's colours to the mast.

On balance, Dawkins provides a valuable service by pissing people off. He flushes the nonsense out of the woodwork. Note, incidentally, that it's not only the soft targets who he pisses off.

I was being dragged around the Science Museum last week, and saw in the bookshop, something called 'The Dawkins delusion'. I thought maybe it was a witty rebuttal of his views, but didn't get a chance to look at it. Anyone else read this?

We've mentioned The Dawkins Delusion here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F2217673?thread=4010634&skip=20&show=20 You also might like to check out the other threads here: A4497492 airscotia? Any relation to the Air Scotia whose offices I pass in a rundown part of Govanhill? I seem to remember they were the first people to offer commercial flights to 'post-war' Baghdad.

Thank you for the information Edward, I'll investigate further.

Not the same airscotia, but quite apt anyway

Not read it, and have no plans to do so.

It's written by biochemist and Christian theologian Alister McGrath, ably assisted by his wife, also a Christian theologian

A while ago I enjoyed watching Alister getting thoroughly trounced by Peter Atkins, in a formal debate entitled: Darwin and humanity: Should we rid the mind of God?

Might get round to this eventually, but no plans to atm. Did love Ancestor's Tale though.

So does Dawkins specifically claim that evolution leads to atheism, or just that it removes the last corner that the 'god of the gaps' can live in, with Occam's Razor doing the rest?

Does he give any credit at all to religion for small-scale personal happiness, i.e. 'Person X may have passed away, but they are in a better place now'?

Gif

What about the Jesuits, aren´t they supposed to have been behind a disproportionate number of scientific discoveries?

>>Does he give any credit at all to religion for small-scale personal happiness, i.e. 'Person X may have passed away, but they are in a better place now'?

Desperately trying to remember the quote by GBS along the line that alcohol gives comfort, but h wouldn't advise anyone to become a drunkard.

The Ancestor's Tale - I was listening to it on Audiobook duringa long drive yesterday. Very Good! Especially the diversion about 'the discontinuous mind'. And the line that made me laugh out loud:
"[The elephant bird's] beak looks large enough to swallow a medium-sized lawyer"

hi , i have had a read through this thread and it is a subject that interests me . as i am an athiest, and as an athiest, i am facinated by religion . i was wondering where dawkings stood on buddhism ?

best fishes tod

Hmm. I doubt he knows much about it. His beef is with religion in general - but he has a tendency to focus on the easy targets. (Fair enough - that's most religion).

Buddhism is a bit of an odd one. In principle - Buddhists are atheists...and I know at least one Buddhist who considers himself so. In practice...Buddhism frequently degenerates into 'Folk Buddhism'...lots and lots of demons, boddhisvatas etc; strange compulsions to spin lumps of wood; banging drums for peace; chanting for a brand new pair of Manolo Blahniks.

It seems to me, as an Atheist Fundamentalist (A4497492), that there's a bit of a tendency amongst the anti-religious to let Buddhists off the hook. But just 'cause the Dalai Lama seems happy, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not a deluded and potentially dangerous way of thinking.

You're welcome to explore this further in the main Atheist Fundamentalism thread.

"Unfortunately, because he hates religion so much (and his stated intention is to convert people to atheism), his reasoning is often suspect, his knowledge of theology is lacking, and he wilfully misrepresents faith. It is a shame that a leading Oxford professor is biased in his arguments, I was able to reject some of his arguments as ridiculous rather than really challenging." Random Mood

Would you care to elaborate? Woodpigeon

He sees religion as a pernicious influence in society, even the 'fluffy' mainstream religion, because he sees it as 'allowing' the extremists to flourish. I recognise that my Christianity is open to this criticism, but so are all forms of views or philosophies.

Dawkins, in my view, is highly selective in his treatment of facts. He assumes that to think evolution can be reconciled with religion is dishonest. I am not a creationist (in the sense that it is generally understood today) and, with my scientific background, believe that evolution and religion can be reconciled.

When it comes to Dawkins' understanding of the New Testament we see his misrepresentation at its height. Jesus did not espouse in-group morality, in fact it was the very opposite. I have found that it there is a tendency within atheism to misrepresent faith, and it is clearly here in 'The God Delusion'. Dawkins' approach is to 'ridicule, distort, belittle and demonize' (McGrath). I was shocked to see how Dawkins misrepresented the teaching of Jesus, and I am sure you will agree it is important to retain intellectual integrity in all discussions on whatever subject, giving each other a fair hearing.

Finally (for now), Dawkins seems to base much of his theology on outdated and discredited work of previous centuries. It is as if he has no knowledge of modern theology, preferring to score cheap points.

Best wishes,
Random Mood

>>...even the 'fluffy' mainstream religion

Hmm. I'd question your view of what the 'mainstream' is. Yes, Dawkins concentrates on the easy target. The anti-scientific, unquestioning religion with its fixed views on morality. But that *is* the mainstream, isn't it?

If religion has anything better to offer, then the religious a) have to tell us what the heck that is and b) disassociate themselves from the mainstream with which they apparently hold common cause. But that's a difficult thing for even the fluffier religionists to do. Their variety of fluffy religion has precisely the same shakey foundations as the hardcore variety that attracts Dawkins' ire.

Will take more time to read the backlog tomorrow but wanted to say that Dawkins is much quoted, and his memes much reliedupon, in a new book by Daniel C Dennett "Breaking the Spell; Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" in which Dennett suggests that the religious impulse (and hence all organised religions) are the work of a virus; similar to the flukes that cause ants to climb up grasses to be eaten by sheep and rats to dance openly in front of cats, and whales to beach themselves (for reason yet unknown). The ants and rats are actually propogating a virus that thrives in the stomachs of sheep and cats.

Religion as a virus... hmmm.
That might explain the hedaches