Posted on 12/13/2005 8:34:28 PM PST by tbird5
The renowned biologist talks about intelligent design, dishonest Christians, and why God is no better than an imaginary friend.
British biologist Richard Dawkins has made a name for himself defending evolution and fighting what he sees as religiously motivated attacks on science. Dr. Dawkins sat down with Beliefnet at the World Congress of Secular Humanism, where his keynote address focused on intelligent design.
You're concerned about the state of education, especially science education. If you were able to teach every person, what would you want people to believe?
I would want them to believe whatever evidence leads them to; I would want them to look at the evidence, judge it on its merits, not accept things because of internal revelation or faith, but purely on the basis of evidence.
Not everybody can evaluate all evidence; we can’t evaluate the evidence for quantum physics. So it does have to be a certain amount of taking things on trust. I have to take what physicists say on trust, for example, because I'm a biologist. But science [has] a system of appraisal, of peer review, so that I trust the physics community to get their act together in a way that I know from the inside. I wish people would put their trust in evidence, not in faith, revelation, tradition, or authority.
(Excerpt) Read more at beliefnet.com ...
There is NO problem with God, except for your own... as you are bound to discover one day.
He always resorts to name calling. Sad little man.
Why should scientists care what people believe with respect to religion? This is the problem, the secular arrogance of atheistic scientists. I seriously doubt these scientists have ever investigated a religious claim scientifically, they just "know" it is all nonsense.
I think any scientist who dismisses thoughts about the ultimate meaning behind the universe is a very shallow thinker. A good scientist knows the limitations of his vocation.
***I think any scientist who dismisses thoughts about the ultimate meaning behind the universe is a very shallow thinker. A good scientist knows the limitations of his vocation.***
I totally agree. Furthermore, I believe God gave us our intellect and free will so that we might pursue knowledge through science as a way of paying homage to His great deeds and truly appreciating that which He created for us, not so we could try and disprove his very existence.
Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed reading the interview. Dawkins is fun to read and I must admit, I agree with everything he said in this interview.
INTREP - Richard Dawkins is one of the biggest hypocrites there is
God did it all 1-2-3.
The proof is everywhere.
The problem with the empericist approach is that it's incomplete.
There are simple conjectures we can make that can never be proved true or false, that doesn't mean they are "neither true nor false", but that we can't ever know them.
And that opens a realm as big, if not bigger, than the known universe.
Ping
What many people miss is that science is a tool to be used, not an end in itself. I think the earlier scientists like Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, etc. had a much better grip on the relationship between science and faith. They were still able to make great strides in science even with what is considered today to be a great handicap.
Funny, but when science can't see beyond the Big Bang, or inside a black hole, or determine the precise location of a quantum particle - he doesn't then conclude the existence of a God??? And these are not things science hasn't answered yet - science has determined these things are unknowable. Some would find that unknowable mystery to be the definition of God.
> Why should scientists care what people believe with
> respect to religion?
He doesn't, so much. He said as much in the article.
I also enjoyed reading the article, and Dawkins makes a lot of sense.
Although I understand where he got his conclusions, ultimately I disagree with them. My personal experience leads me to believe that there's definitely something more than meets the eye going on in the universe, and beliefs in God and an afterlife are not unreasonable. Not from my point of view, at least.
If we people of faith decided that Love did not exist unless it were scientifically proven to be so, wouldn't we be turning our back on what Love is?
I actually think Dawkins did a pretty good job of keeping both apart, until this eruption:
Well, of course it is. Wouldn’t it be lovely to believe in an imaginary friend who listens to your thoughts, listens to your prayers, comforts you, consoles you, gives you life after death, can give you advice? Of course it’s satisfying, if you can believe it. But who wants to believe a lie?
NOT scientific, Dawkins. Keep to what science is about, and stop applying it to matters of faith.
BS, Dawkins is in an absolute fight with religious thinking people. He mocks them and accuses them of unfair tactics. He says his daughter is way too smart to believe in God. You think he doesn't care if his daughter becomes religious?
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.