How many of you like Dawkins

[pilchard]

NIce post Reggie M... Only thing I would add is that we need to take him seriously and "tackle" him because of his exposure and his influence. Who knows how many people have embraced atheism directly because of his books and his interviews and his prime time TV series.....

All of this makes him more than fair game.

As they say in the GodFather - nothing personal - strickly business...

[driscll_books]

Francis S. Collins, in his book, "The Language of God", states: "the major and inescapable flaw of Dawkins' claim that science demands atheism is that it goes beyond the evidence. If God is outside nature, then science can neither prove or disprove His existence. Atheism itself must therefore be considered a form of blind faith, in that it adopts a belief system that cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason".

[LutheranDK]

Originally Posted by reggieM

I find him pathetic, for the most part. He's basically just an Anglican who took that brand of Protestantism to its logical conclusion in many ways.

You just HAD to include some kind of non-RC bashing in an otherwise intelligent response. Sad, and pathetic

[williamric]

Originally Posted by dumbseeker

I am reading Dawkins's books lately and I watch a lot of his videos. I think he's a rational atheist. How many of you like him? Why or why not?

As an Atheist, I don't think he's particulary good... He seems to be a nice guy, maybe a bit outspoken, but really I try not to care about such trivial things

[williamric]

Originally Posted by Blade and Blood

www.richarddawkins.net

I spent a considerable time on this forum, probably the worst Atheist forum I ever went on... The discussion was ridiculously immature...

[MegaTherion]

Originally Posted by reggieM

To his credit, he has stressed many times that nature "appears to be designed for a purpose". He claims that evolution can explain this "illusion" but he does admit that it is mysterious and counter-intuitive to believe that evolution can create the "illusion" of "purpose and design".

It is counter-intuitive.

It's also counter-intuitive to think that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around.

But evidence shows us that it doesn't matter what we might at first hastily conclude. And that's the point with evoluton.

It sounds like you don't know very much about evolution.

[MegaTherion]

Originally Posted by driscll_books

Francis S. Collins, in his book, "The Language of God", states: "the major and inescapable flaw of Dawkins' claim that science demands atheism is that it goes beyond the evidence. If God is outside nature, then science can neither prove or disprove His existence. Atheism itself must therefore be considered a form of blind faith, in that it adopts a belief system that cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason".

Atheism is not a position of faith -- it is the lack of belief in gods.

Science cannot disprove the Christian god, just as it cannot disprove the Hindu gods, the Zoroastrian gods, the Roman gods, Cthulhu, and leprechauns. There are millions of supernatural things that science cannot prove wrong.

But we don't accept any of those things because there is no evidence whatsoever for any of those things. It's not an "act of faith" to disbelieve in the Hindu myths or the Roman myths. It's a rational position based on lack of evidence.

Atheism does not require faith.

[Angels Unaware]

Originally Posted by MegaTherion

It sounds like you don't know very much about evolution.

It sounds to me like you are saying that anyone who disagrees that evolution demonstrates there is no God is wrong.

It also sounds to me like there are lots of people who have been indoctrinated to think their educations in the biological sciences make them more highly evolved life forms, and therefore their dogmatic assertions should be taken at face value, while others' dogmatic assertions should be questioned.

[MegaTherion]

Originally Posted by Angels Unaware

It sounds to me like you are saying that anyone who disagrees that evolution demonstrates there is no God is wrong.

I never said that evolution demonstrates there is no god. It's impossible for evolution to demonstrate that -- just like it's impossible for evolution to demonstrate that there are no Hindu gods, Roman gods, Zoroastrian gods, etc.

I was responding to the insinuation that Dawkins statement that some aspects of evolution are "counter-intuitive" in any way lend credence to the idea that the world was "designed" by a force other than natural selection.

I was pointing out that it is counter-intuitive (yet true) much in the same way that the "earth goes around the sun" seems counter-intuitive (yet is true).

their dogmatic assertions should be taken at face value, while others' dogmatic assertions should be questioned.

No. There are no "dogmatic assertions" in evolution. No one accepts evolution as the fact that it is because Dawkins (or some famous scientist) says so. It is accepted on the weight of its evidence.

Now, if you are not inclined to study the massive amounts of evidence for evolution (practically everything we have ever learned about life supports common ancestry), we have set up bodies of experts that review each other's findings based on evidence.

That's why a layman can accept findings that come through this peer-review process, and it is not an act of faith in the slightest. Because any reasonable person can go and review the evidence and will come to the exact same conclusions.

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by MegaTherion

Atheism is not a position of faith -- it is the lack of belief in gods.

The evolutionary-scientist, Francis S. Collins, disagrees with you. As is common, the opinion of one evolutionist conflicts with that of another.

I think you should post your scientific credentials at this point, given that Darwinian evolutionists like to claim that anyone who is not a biologist (especially "molecular biologist") who has recently (no more than 3 years ago) published peer reviewed papers in approved scientific journals, is "qualified" to offer opinions on evolution. Such persons "lack credibility".

So -- let's hear your credentials and links to peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary theory.

Science cannot disprove the Christian god ...

You're using the term "prove" with regards to science and all of the evolutionists on CAF repeat ad nauseam that "science cannot prove anything".

So, perhaps you're not quite up to date on the latest trend in evolutionary concepts. Or, perhaps you disagree and think that science does "prove things".

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by MegaTherion

Because any reasonable person can go and review the evidence and will come to the exact same conclusions.

Only an unreasonable person could disagree with the findings of the "experts"?

The "evidence" is interpreted by the experts to supposedly have some meaning.

Evolutionists themselves do not agree with each others' conclusions, so it is not merely something that "any reasonable person" can reach the "exact same conclusion on".

[tuviskazinai]

I have to say that I am not at all a fan of Dawkins -- I think he is a pretty worthless philosopher, for the reasons many on this thread have already posted. (Though I don't have anything against his voice. )

The thing that bothers me most about him is his persistent use of the word "reason" to describe what he is doing. He talks all the time about how science is the best defender of reason in the world...and yet I honestly don't even think he knows what the word means. If he made all his dumb mistakes without giving "reason" a bad name in the process, I probably wouldn't mind so much!

Whenever he talks about "reason" he equates it with having indisputable scientific evidence. He then opposes it to "faith," which he regards as belief without evidence. But "reason" is in between the two things he describes. I remember reading a nice article by Fr. Giussani, or else someone in his Communion and Liberation circle, which explained that reason is the relation between human experience and the faith that that experience allows us to have. Of course we need to be attentive to scientific fact, and Christians who ignore scientific findings are not properly informing their faith. But we also need to be attentive to "invisible" truths...such as what brings us happiness in the world, the longing we have for love, the encounters we have with beauty, etc.

And then reason is what says, ok, based on all of this -- visible and invisible -- here are the conclusions I can draw about the way the world works...which I can then put my faith in. Scientists use reason all the time: to take an ultra-simple example, they see that the sun has risen every day, and say that barring any unforeseen events, the sun will rise tomorrow. This is a proposition based both on visible experience and the invisible laws of physics, and yet it is reason that allows us to draw an invisible link between these things and confidence in a future event which we have not yet experienced.

So when Dawkins says, "Ok, you believe in a God for which you have no proof -- you are choosing faith over reason," he is confusing reason with evidence. I know this is all 2nd grade theology, but it's just shocking that a scientist like Dawkins who presumes to write "philosophy" just doesn't get it. It's particularly saddening because it keeps him from realizing that the Church -- with its rich history of philosophy, its timeless willingness to explain in detail everything it believes, and its counter-cultural opposition to nihilism -- is perhaps the leading advocate of the efficacy of "reason" in the world!

Peace,
+AMDG+

[Angels Unaware]

Originally Posted by MegaTherion

I was responding to the insinuation that Dawkins statement that some aspects of evolution are "counter-intuitive" in any way lend credence to the idea that the world was "designed" by a force other than natural selection.

And your response seemed to be a categorical denial that the apperance of design could support the assertion that there is a design.

The appearance of design does not prove the existence of design, but it most certainly does not disprove design.

The fact that you would like to argue that what we perceive as "design" in nature is in fact "badly designed", thus only explainable by random processes is nothing except your own argument. Or, actually, Dawkins argument.

No. There are no "dogmatic assertions" in evolution. No one accepts evolution as the fact that it is because Dawkins (or some famous scientist) says so. It is accepted on the weight of its evidence.

There are dogmatic assertions in Atheism.

There are philosphical assumptions that are inherent to studying biology from a "Darwinian" perspective. One philosophical assumption is that everything observed is entirely reduceable to hydrogen, for example, and was "built" through time and chance.

Right? I mean, my biology and physics were taken at the undergraduate level, so I am not a scientist, but that's pretty basic.

There are some who argue that this paradigm is losing some of its explanatory power in some cases as the science accumulates. Behe, for example. My point was not to go there, but to say, there is a confusion that occurs with Dawkins, and with atheism.

Many make this error in believing that just because we see creative processes that occur over time, (presumably by chance, though nobody can ever know whether or not the Universe is inherently meaningful or meaningless) then therefore it is impossible to assign purpose or higher intelligence to the natural world.

That is untrue. I believe it is entirely false that to accept evolutionary principles is to necessarily deny the existence of purpose or higher consciousness in the Universe.

Now, if you are not inclined to study the massive amounts of evidence for evolution (practically everything we have ever learned about life supports common ancestry), we have set up bodies of experts that review each other's findings based on evidence.

That's why a layman can accept findings that come through this peer-review process, and it is not an act of faith in the slightest. Because any reasonable person can go and review the evidence and will come to the exact same conclusions.

What does the peer-review process have to do with any of this?

Who is questioning the existence of Evolution? I am certainly not.

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by LutheranDK

You just HAD to include some kind of non-RC bashing in an otherwise intelligent response. Sad, and pathetic

With a little reflection ... yes, you're right. That point didn't add anything to the response. It was an off-handed and unnecessary comment. My apologies.

[MegaTherion]

Originally Posted by reggieM

The evolutionary-scientist, Francis S. Collins, disagrees with you. As is common, the opinion of one evolutionist conflicts with that of another.

Collins' field of expertise doesn't mean that he knows much about other fields. The fact that his definition of atheism is at odds with that used by most modern atheists has nothing to do with his accepting of evolution.

I think you should post your scientific credentials at this point, given that Darwinian evolutionists like to claim that anyone who is not a biologist (especially "molecular biologist") who has recently (no more than 3 years ago) published peer reviewed papers in approved scientific journals, is "qualified" to offer opinions on evolution. Such persons "lack credibility".

So -- let's hear your credentials and links to peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary theory.

I certainly would not be qualified to publish papers on the subject, nor would I be qualified to overturn the findings of nearly every single biologist on the earth.

But, as a layman who has some basic understanding of the method and evidence involved, I am capable of discussing some aspects of evolution.

Evolutionists themselves do not agree with each others' conclusions, so it is not merely something that "any reasonable person" can reach the "exact same conclusion on".

As in any scientific field, evolution is a living field in which multiple hypotheses often compete. Scientists certainly don't know everything about evolution, and there is naturally some debate about some of the finer points (as in every scientific field), but scientists agree on so much about evolution that your claim that they "do not agree with each others' concusions" is disingenuous.

The vast, vast majority of evolutionary theory has the approval of nearly every biologist on earth.