Posted on 05/21/2007 10:05:04 AM PDT by Frumanchu
Pinging to some friends regarding militant atheism.
How about sending our aetheistic professor to the Middle East and convince them first.
The ‘reason’-based Dawkins sounds very emotional in his arguments, doesn’t he?
Then this "scientist" knows nothing about behavioral psychology. At all.
IMHO, Professor Dawkins is an angry, unhappy man whose anger and unhappiness have little to do with God. It probably started with his early childhood and was reinforced by parents, family and a personality that was inclined to see the world perversely, obstinately and arrogantly.
But, hey, that's my Amateur Psych 101 opinion and though it's worth diddly to most, it might be correct. Bet it is, mostly.
Hmm, Dawkins must be about to fall into that pit he digged for us.
I’m just going to go a step further, and while the term is no longer used formally, say that Dawkins is bordering on sociopathy.
Actually, I think the fiercest attacks come from within the church by liberal theologians who would either purposely or unknowingly lead the masses away. Extreme atheists, as noted by Mr. Ruse, tend to be embarrassing.
I agree. The most damaging and devious attacks on the Truth come from those who identify themselves with the church while working feverishly to attack every foundational pillar they can.
Dante reserved the ninth circle for them.
Very interesting
Dawkins is on a crusade, however, I find him refreshingly honest with his either/ors about evolution.
He clearly states that evolution makes God obsolete, and that the 2 are incompatible beliefs.
For a variety of reasons, I agree with that.
My personal opinion, for what little its worth, is that creation is on-going, and we are a key and necessary element in the process.
And that evolution, depending upon how you define it, is just a tool in the toolkit.
That God is creator doesn't even enter into question for me. So the only question is "how". Thats where the sciences come in. Since God's existence isn't in question, however the evidence falls out doesn't disturb me, it intrigues me, it interests me, if it seems to be going in an unexpected direction I don't worry about it. There are people on both sides of the question who believe that, if evolution can be proven, God will vanish, and so the whole question takes on a desperate existential quality that it doesn't merit, with each side believing that God's existence hangs in the balance.
All that hangs in the balance is our understanding of how God goes about his business, and we need to know, because our business is to make use of what we learn. Its a big universe out there, and God gave it to us. Or, well, he is in the process of giving it to us. Our job is to learn how it operates.
One thing we should be very clear on is that while "science" digs up bits of information every day, there is no way that we will know all there is to know this year or next or in our grandkids' lifetimes. Anyone claiming to have final and complete scientific understanding is just being argumentative. All I care to guess is that the picture that unfolds is going to be even more astounding than we can guess. I can't wait. I won't live to see the really cool stuff half a century or a century down the line, I'll have to watch from the grandstands on the other side, I imagine.
I've never understood why atheists say, "should". What basis does a materialist have for emoting that the universe or some aspect of it (in this case, a 'belief')ought to be something other than what it is? If the physical universe is all there is and that's where beliefs come from after all, and that's all beliefs are made of, then where does he get his imaginary standard by which he measures beliefs and determines that some of them don't meaure up. Measure up to what?
How can the universe produce something "wrong" with itself?
Cordially,
I assert that if one considers our space/time coordinates v the inception space/time coordinates (relativity and inflationary theory) - the incompatibility between evolution and creation is a perception and not real.
Lovely essay/post, marron!
The analogy is just fine. The difference is that there is not a stigma attached to believing in God and there is no way to "prove" he doesn't exist, since all the payoff is when you are dead. It's standard to treat adults who believe in Santa with pity and ridicule and we're secure in that because we can prove he doesn't exist every Christmas morning when we don't get gifts from him and neither do our kids. The reason no one seriously claims to believe in Zeus or Jupiter is that people would treat them as crazy. There's no real logic to the separate responses.
Dawkins can no more 'prove' the non-existence of God than anyone else can prove He does exist.
The thing is, the burden of proof is on you, not on us. I don't have to prove that unicorns and leprechauns don't exist, either. The default is that unless you can prove something to be true, it isn't true.
Most of us are aware that we hold many beliefs we cannot prove to be true. It reminds us that we need to treat those who disagree with us with intellectual respect, rather than dismissing them - as Dawkins does - as liars, knaves and charlatans.
Society doesn't treat those with unsubstantiated beliefs with praise. Only unsubstantiated beliefs that the particular society has adopted, which makes it totally relative. We call people kooks and crazies and nutjobs and such all the time for believing in things that have been accepted by society as nonsense. We here at FR laugh at Rosie every time she talks about the Bush Administration blowing up the WTC. We at FR think Allah and Mohammed's supposed divine association with him are ridiculous, too.
Dawkins answered your question. You are saying that belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy should not be criticized for not measuring up. Do you really believe that statement? Belief in those two things came from the universe (which was your argument), after all. Not all ideas should be treated equally, with equal respect.
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.