[clee1]

There is NO problem with God, except for your own... as you are bound to discover one day.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

He always resorts to name calling. Sad little man.

[Williams]

Boy, that is really childish. He thinks science can be taken on faith, because it has peer review. Guess he does not have even a rudimentary knowledge of all the fraud by scientists, all the revised scientific beliefs throughout time. I remember the dinosaur at the museum where for 100 years the scientists had the head at the end of the tail bone.

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.

[shempy]

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.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - Richard Dawkins is one of the biggest hypocrites there is

[Baraonda]

God did it all 1-2-3.

The proof is everywhere.

[metmom]

Trusting someone or something sounds like putting your faith in them/it to me. Isn't he also relying on their authority? He obviously wants science to be taught from a purely secular humanist viewpoint. That's an agenda along with this...

My book, "Unweaving the Rainbow," is an attempt to elevate science to the level of poetry and to show how one can be—in a funny sort of way—rather spiritual about science. Not in a supernatural sense, but there are uplifting mysteries to be solved. The contemplation of the size and scale of the universe, of the depth of geological time, of the complexity of life--these all, to me, have an inspirational quality. It makes my life worthwhile to study them.

Sounds like he's just substituting one religion with another.

[djf]

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.

[GarySpFc]

Ping

[Williams]

Understanding evolution led him to be an atheist. There's an interesting empirical proof for you. This guy basically believes that whenever science explains something, it proves the nonexistence of a God or reason behind the universe. I'd like to know how that foillows logically.

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.

[wigswest]

Science doesn't - can't - answer questions of faith (truth). Religion doesn't address questions of science (fact). I honestly believe that people of faith belittle what faith is about when they seek to have the blessing of science.

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.

[RunningWolf]

After reading part of that I think we have a bunch of R. Dawkins juniors on the evo threads.

Wolf

[Coyoteman]

For tomorrow ===> Placemarker <===

[Question_Assumptions]

For those who wonder why there is a desire to teach ID in schools. People like this have framed the debate as science OR religion and claim that science disproves religion. When that happens, don't be surprised if people pick religion and are willing to toss science over the wall.

[Windsong]

"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom." ___ Albert Einstein

"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking personwith a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism" ___ Albert Einstein

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein

"Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

[Old Landmarks]

...well, if they’re so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated.

This is just another example of Richard Dawkin's attempting indirect deception, aimed at those who have not been exposed to a general understanding of God as creator.

Could it be that God is indeed even more complex than His creation? Or that God is even more complex and intelligent than Dawkins.

Is it possible that Dawkins however might be more complex the books he writes?

Of course the fact that Dawkins would balk at a God that is more complex than His creation is silly...as if that would somehow be a problem.

Incredibly, Dawkins says this in all seriousness.

[VOA]

bump

[wallcrawlr]

ping

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I think his evidence comes up short.

[Stark_GOP]

It's quite telling when a person spends so much time and effort trying to convince you that someone doesn't exist.