Richard Dawkins - friend or foe.....

John Stevenson

Big Red S wrote:

I can't categorically state that there isn't a FSM, no, since I have no proof. And I don't believe that one exists. Similarly, I cannot prove that God exists, and I don't believe he does. But at the same time, I cannot demonstrate that either do not exist, so it is only reasonable to allow for the possibility that they might.

It comes down to the balance of evidence/probabilities. Science works. It models the world in a testable, falsifiable and repeatable way.

For religion to be true, one of the base claims of most major religions must also be true: God intervenes in the lives of humans, performing miracles.

A miracle is an inexplicable overturning of the known laws of physics. Something that, as far as science is aware, cannot happen.

So you either have the vast amount of material evidence that the universe consistently and repeatably behaves in a certain way, or you have miracles and other supernormal phenonema.

There's a million dollars waiting in James Randi's bank account for someone who demonstrates such a phenomenon. It's gone unclaimed for several decades.

driverpm

JustRidecp wrote:

Also, with regards to atoms, electrical charge and DNA, we dont have powerfull enough microscopes to see these.

Just to remove DNA from this list



from http://www.fidelitysystems.com/Unlinked_DNA.html

Alternatively by following a very simple procedure with reagents available in 95% of labs in the world you can isolates sufficient DNA (from yourself if you like) to be able to see it with the naked eye. Kind of a bizarre experience if you can look at the material that contains all of the basic info that was needed to build you :shock:

ddraver

Serously...thats awesome

ddraver

Serously...thats awesome

so thats two seperate chains of double helixes or is that a single strand on DNA that has (s'cuse my a-level biology) unzipped?!

JustRidecp

driverpm wrote:

JustRidecp wrote:

Also, with regards to atoms, electrical charge and DNA, we dont have powerfull enough microscopes to see these.

Just to remove DNA from this list



from http://www.fidelitysystems.com/Unlinked_DNA.html

Alternatively by following a very simple procedure with reagents available in 95% of labs in the world you can isolates sufficient DNA (from yourself if you like) to be able to see it with the naked eye. Kind of a bizarre experience if you can look at the material that contains all of the basic info that was needed to build you :shock:

Nice one!! I'm impressed!

driverpm

ddraver wrote:

Serously...thats awesome

so thats two seperate chains of double helixes or is that a single strand on DNA that has (s'cuse my a-level biology) unzipped?!

Pretty sure it's an unlinked single molecule (i.e. 1 double stranded piece of DNA unwound) - looking at it i also presume its plasmid/bacterial?
will try to find out for certain

wai

If I may chime in at this late juncture, I'd just like to say that of the many millions who believe in a Christian God in the world today, I doubt that any of them were swayed by verifiable, repeatable, scientific proof, despite the fact that many of them are scientists themselves.

The more fool they, you might think, in your intellectually superior, dawkins kind of way.

Of course, it is possible to believe in God for the wrong reasons, but I think that the right reason for belief in God is knowing that we are sinners and are going to die as such (the latter is certainly true of everyone, as well as the former if we are honest with ourselves) and trying to see a way to solve this dilemma. For many, this isn't a dilemma as it's conveniently ignored or justified in some sort of moral and ethical mental gymnastics.

For many to whom this is not sufficient, the Christian Bible is the best fit, dealing as it does, with a righteous, sacrificial, loving, redemptive God who is eager for a direct relationship with His children but condemnation and exclusion for those who choose not to listen and believe.

Where does scientific proof come into all of this? Well, it does come, in as far as the Bible, Jesus' life and death on the cross, the nature of the world and the cosmos and the nature of man are 'proofs'. If examination of these are not sufficient, then God appearing before you and telling you to bow down and believe in Him will not be sufficient.

Edit: though perhaps that is what it takes for it to happen in a 'spiritual' sense.

ddraver

you er what.....eh?!

the story in the bible proves the story is true.....so harry potter's true cos its like... written down is it?!

Who says we are sinners?! the same God whos existence we re debating!

I have a clear concience and i don't believe in god, When i RLJ i don't ask god for forgiveness (not yet anyway) and i ve never felt the need to murder someone who annoyed me cos i simply don't believe thats right....Again, I don't fear god because i don't, in my heart of hearts, believe in him

I have been a chior boy most of my life, sat through numerous services, been moved by the power of the music, but never once have i ever felt like it really mattered what the occasion was,

i ve really tried, done all the things i'm supposed to....if i could sing christmas carols all year i'd be glad to (the nice ones that is!!!!)

The only time ive ever felt like there was a powerful spiritual...effect (not the right word really) was in Nepal with the buddhist temples, they don't require a god to ask forgiveness from, and i ve never seen any violence carried out in the name of buddha......

and finally for the many people in this world its the (apologies) Koran that provides the best fit...nothing to do with where they were born is it?!

JustRidecp

wai wrote:

For many to whom this is not sufficient, the Christian Bible is the best fit,

I'd say the Quran is the best fit. This is why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.

Also, the Christian God is the same God as the Jewish God and the Muslim God.

Tourist Tony

What, imaginary?

Tourist Tony

Seriously, and as has been said many times, the difference between "faith" and science--or between any "believer" and Dawkins---is that if evidence was ever presented to Dawkins et al proving them wrong, they would (after evaluating the evidence) then change their minds and admit to having been wrong.
A "believer" would simply say "No, my Book says it is so, so that's all rubbish. I still Believe."

That's the difference here.

ddraver

well put TT (dammit :P )

BigWomble

ddraver wrote:

The only time ive ever felt like there was a powerful spiritual...effect (not the right word really) was in Nepal with the buddhist temples, they don't require a god to ask forgiveness from, and i ve never seen any violence carried out in the name of buddha......

It works differently with Buddhism. Buddhism, per se, forbids violence, seeing it as a an expression of deep seated problems within people. However, Buddhist countries have had armies, sometimes powerful armies, which they used to conquer other countries. Zen Buddhism was a deep driving force behind the Imperial Japanese armed forces during WW II for example.

If it works for you, I would give Buddhism a proper go.

BW.

ddraver

well I'm too much of a geologist to do that........too far into science now

paulym31

If I may stick my oar in at this late juncture, the terms 'faith' and 'religion' are being treated as interchangable here.
What Dawkins is attempting to challenge in his TV series is belief (or faith) in phenomena the existence of which cannot be proved by empirical evidence. The experiment he showed being conducted into dousing was a clasic example of this. A double-blind experiment to test whether people could do what they claimed they could do. Their 'faith' in their skill, powers, gift, call it what you will, was so strong that all of them continued to believe that they could find water in the face of rational scientific evidence. It is this 'faith' in the face of evidence which Dawkins is attacking.
The term 'religion' differs from a belief in that a religion is simply a way of life. That most are based on a faith in the existence of a higher power is incidental.
IMHO the main failing of Dawkins' approach is that he constantly looks for empirical evidence. The very basis of faith is that one believes in the face of a lack of this evidence. Literally 'Blind Faith', however Dawkins' is unable to see how anyone could believe anything which cannot be proved. This is his failing, this inflexibility in thinking is what characterises religious fundamentalists the world over (for the record I consider atheism to be a religion although it clearly cannot be a faith as it is underpinned by a total lack of faith).
Dawkins' fundamentalism is what makes his viewing so compelling.