Posted on 08/27/2012 2:13:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Famed atheist Richard Dawkins sat down with Playboy Magazine to discuss “the simple beauty of evolution, the improbability of God and why the pope should be arrested,” among other subjects. As usual, Dawkins took a provocative approach in the interview — one that people of faith will surely find offensive. These contentious anti-religious views appear in the September issue of Playboy.
(VIDEO AT LINK)
Toward the beginning of the interview, Dawkins was asked to weigh in and explain why, in the past, he has called himself a “tooth faith” agnostic. His explanation essentially frames his overarching views on God’s existence. Here’s how the dialogue unfolded:
PLAYBOY: You’ve described yourself as a “tooth fairy” agnostic. What is that?
DAWKINS: Rather than say he’s an atheist, a friend of mine says, “I’m a tooth fairy agnostic,” meaning he can’t disprove God but thinks God is about as likely as the tooth fairy.
PLAYBOY: So you don’t completely rule out the idea of a supreme being. Critics see that as leaving an opening.
DAWKINS: You can think so, if you think there’s an opening for the tooth fairy.
While it’s unlikely that the Lord exists — at least in Dawkins’ mind — if given the opportunity to ask the creator (in the unlikely event he’s real) a question, the famed biologist said he’d ask, “Sir, why did you go to such lengths to hide yourself?”
When it comes to the individuals Dawkins associates himself with, he admitted not having any “deeply religious friends.” In addition to separating himself from those who believe in a higher power, Dawkins took a swipe at the intellectual capacity of those who embrace God.
“It’s not that I shun them,” he said of the religious. “It’s that the circles I move in tend to be educated, intelligent circles, and there aren’t any religious people among them that I know of.”
Of course, many intelligent and educated people do, indeed, embrace the existence of a higher power. However, it seems Dawkins either avoids or simply hasn’t encountered these people.
As for the Bible and Jesus Christ — central tenets of the Christian faith — the famed non-theist didn’t have many favorable accolades to share. On the sociopolitical front, he believes that the holy books associated with Christianity, Judaism and Islam will prevent peace from ever coming to fruition in the Middle East.
“There’s not much hope to the extent that the most influential protagonists both base their hostility on 2,000-year-old books that they believe give them title to the land,” he explained.
Rather than staking the claim that Jesus Christ was merely a historical figure, but that he simply wasn’t the son of God as many other atheists have done, Dawkins seems to cast doubt on his existence.
“The evidence he existed is surprisingly shaky,” he told Playboy. “The earliest books in the New Testament to be written were the Epistles, not the Gospels. It’s almost as though Saint Paul and others who wrote the Epistles weren’t that interested in whether Jesus was real.”
“Even if he’s fictional, whoever wrote his lines was ahead of his time in terms of moral philosophy,” he added.
Dawkins called the idea that “Jesus died for our sins” “barking mad.” At the center of his angst over the salvation story is the notion that God found the need to torture himself to the point of death. He called the entire story “a truly disgusting idea.”
While he holds these intense views, he did admit that he hasn’t read the entire Bible, but that he believes his knowledge of it is more profound than “most fundamentalist Christians.” Despite not having read the entire book, the evolutionary biologist said that the book of Ecclesiastes is his favorite.
Dawkins also criticized the Pope and made the case against his alleged cover-up of crimes that were committed by clergy. He also went on to address evolution and his view that human beings are essentially “apes”:
PLAYBOY: Let’s turn to evolution, which many people misunderstand, such as believing we descend from apes.
DAWKINS: We are apes. We descend from extinct animals that would have been classified as apes. We are not descended from modern chimps or bonobos or gorillas. They’ve been evolving for exactly the same length of time as we have.
PLAYBOY: So what makes us human?
DAWKINS: We are a unique ape. We have language. Other animals have systems of communication that fall far short of that. They don’t have the same ability to communicate complicated conditionals and what-ifs and talk about things that are not present. These are all unique manifestations of our evolved ape brain, which some evidence suggests came about through a rather limited number of mutations.
These, of course, are only the highlights. While Dawkins has shared many of these views before, he reiterated, clarified and intensified his stance on non-belief and theism in his Playboy dialogue.
The existence of Jesus Christ was attested to by numerous witnesses and the fact that twelve of them at least were willing to die horrific deaths rather than recant what they saw and heard. Later on disinterested historic authorities such as Josephus took his “existence” at face value. Who would be willing to suffer such a fate for the sake of Richard Dawkins and can anybody swear they’ve actually met the SOB? Anybody?
>>Not much said regarding Muslims.
He said that there is little evidence that Jesus even existed as a historical figure. That means he’s calling the Koran a lie and Mo’Ham-Ed a liar. Maybe he can get himself a fatwa.
Frankly, as a Christian, I don’t care what he says. He’s heard the Gospel and studied it and he made his choice.
“Sir, why did you go to such lengths to hide yourself?”
Won’t wash, Dickie. God is inside your head. He KNOWS how you have run from Him, denied Him. He KNOWS how many times He has Touched you.
it is not the eye witness accounts but the actual written records of the day. For example the romans actualy kept written records of who was crucified and when.
“If you seek Me, you will find Me, if you search for Me with all your heart....”
5. a group of people sharing an interest, activity, upbringing, etc; set: golf circles ; a family circle
LLS
5. a group of people sharing an interest, activity, upbringing, etc; set: golf circles ; a family circle
“There may be such circles, but their existence is something about which I am unaware.”
I am sure the circles are animate. When referring to them they should be recognized as such. I also think, if I may be so bold, that the word “of” is a preposition and intelligent people generally concede they should avoid ending sentences in prepositions, which you made no mention of. Heh heh heh.
People like Dawkins point to that and say "A ha, no evidence!". But if we used the same standard on other historic figures we could equally say "where is the evidence that Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great actually existed?" The Egyptians left their records in stone and papyrus that was buried deep and dry. The Romans and Jews on parchment and wax tablets which are all long gone. Just copies of copies of copies (as with the Gospels) exist.
His agnosticism on the historicity of Jess Christ simply paints him as a nut and does us Christians a huge favor.
I'm pretty sure the circles are figurative.
I wouldn't mention the practice of ending a sentence with a preposition, since it seems to be a fairly common grammatical construction in English. If this exchange were taking place in French, I might comment, since ending sentences with prepositions would sound utterly bizarre in French. The Oxford dictionary people have this to say: There’s no necessity to ban prepositions from the end of sentences. Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English.
“I’m pretty sure the circles are figurative.”
That doesn’t make sense.
A circle of rocks THAT bakes in the sun would be correct.
A circle of sunbathers WHO bake in the sun would be correct.
The figurative aspect has nothing to do with it.
As for ending a sentence in a preposition, if you should see the editors of that piece, tell them they are a circle of ninnies WHO know nothing. Seeming to be fairly common matters little. A circle of fools WHO pronounce it so does not make it so.
"Circles" also means the social groups one associates with; I've seen it used in that context for as long as I can remember. And the dictionary definition I linked previously supports that usage, as well.
As for ending a sentence in a preposition, if you should see the editors of that piece, tell them they are a circle of ninnies WHO know nothing. Seeming to be fairly common matters little. A circle of fools WHO pronounce it so does not make it so.
What I wonder is where people came up with the silly idea that it is unacceptable to end a sentence (in English) with a preposition. While it's possible, it just sounds horribly awkward when trying to avoid a construction that normally requires the terminal preposition. How do you tell your kids to put the dog out? Do you always remember to turn the lights off?
“Circles” also means the social groups one associates with; I’ve seen it used in that context for as long as I can remember. And the dictionary definition I linked previously supports that usage, as well.”
I’m sorry you didn’t understand my complaints about the article. You do not describe a circle of people “that” do something...they are a group of people; “that” is incorrect. I know what a circle is, dear. A sewing circle, a circle of friends, etc. Please.
And no, I don’t turn lights off. I turn off the lights. And if Pepper needs to go out, I ask someone to let out the dog. Or I do it myself.
Playboy has actually done some great interviews. The articles...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.