how some of you misunderstand Dawkins

[_Calculus Crusader]

I understand Dawkins well enough, but as I wrote before, his treatment of the classical arguments for the existence of God is pedestrian at best.

[_Coggins7]

It is the rules of logic and the scientific method that have allowed human beings to progress beyond the stage at which we were stuck for many centuries. Religion didn't pull us out of that stage - science and logic did, both of which provide ways to DISCIPLINE our thinking in order to avoid the very errors to which we are all susceptible - and which religion does nothing to control.

This is just barely worth responding to for the reason that, quite beyond the fact that it is nothing but pure prejudice, the idea that science and logic created Akkad, or Sumer, or Egypt, or Handel's Messiah, or Eliot's poetry, or the Analects of Confucius, or the Tao De Ching, or Beethoven's ninth symphony, or the Beatitudes, or any of the great art, literature, music, and great ideas that are really at the base of that which "pulled us out" of some hypothetical "stage" you claim "we were at" at some point is utterly fatuous.

If material progress is your only concern, then science and technology are as important as you claim, but science and technology own much of their own progress and development to religion and religious people. Science and technology flourished in ancient Greece, in ancient Muslim lands, and many of the earliest scientists were devout Christians, as devout as those who burned them at the stake.

I disagree that it was logic and scientific method that, in and of themselves, put us where we are today. Science and logic are intellectual tools used to discover and then apply the laws of nature (technology) to human progress. But the environment in which these tools became as useful as they have become is far more important than the tools themselves. That environment is the one created by principles extracted from the great religions, In particular Christianity, and in particular, the concepts of unalienable rights, equality under the law, the rule of law, and the framework of Judeo/Christian moral/ethical concepts without which science and technology need give us nothing more than what Nazism and Communism gave us during the 20th century.

All of the above were understood to have emanated from "nature and nature's God" and from a sense of the existence of an ultimate and overarching authority and ground of all human values and rules of conduct in human relationships. Without those, there would be no science and technology at all because no human recivilization would ever have developed beyond that of 10th century Viking culture.

Your childlike faith in "rationality" and its capabilities are as naïve and simplistic as is your knowledge of comparative religion and the history of science.

[_Coggins7]

It is the rules of logic and the scientific method that have allowed human beings to progress beyond the stage at which we were stuck for many centuries. Religion didn't pull us out of that stage - science and logic did, both of which provide ways to DISCIPLINE our thinking in order to avoid the very errors to which we are all susceptible - and which religion does nothing to control.

One wonder if Beastie considers the Golden rule to be less important than the discovery of the internal combustion engine, or Newtonian mechanics, and if so, why?

Beastie has at last descended to the intellectual slovenliness of Madalyn Murry O' Hair in making the typical facile arguments against God that are too easily argued against to be really even challenging. One can be forgiven for wishing many atheists would consult their own sacred canons of rationality and logical thought before pontificating to others of the benefits of these intellectual templates.

[_The Nehor]

It is the rules of logic and the scientific method that have allowed human beings to progress beyond the stage at which we were stuck for many centuries. Religion didn't pull us out of that stage - science and logic did, both of which provide ways to DISCIPLINE our thinking in order to avoid the very errors to which we are all susceptible - and which religion does nothing to control.

Depends on what your religion entails. I personally find logic and science combined with the use of curiosity and revelation is the only way to both find the difficulties within my worldview, my understanding of God, and understanding of the Universe and get the answers.

[_Ray A]

One wonder if Beastie considers the Golden rule to be less important than the discovery of the internal combustion engine, or Newtonian mechanics, and if so, why?

Beastie has at last descended to the intellectual slovenliness of Madalyn Murry O' Hair in making the typical facile arguments against God that are too easily argued against to be really even challenging. One can be forgiven for wishing many atheists would consult their own sacred canons of rationality and logical thought before pontificating to others of the benefits of these intellectual templates.

Cog, you took the words right out of my mouth.

[_guy sajer]

In order to believe in something for which there is no evidence, one must "turn off" the will to think critically and analytically - in a disciplined way. Once the tendency develops to "turn off" that faculty, it becomes easier and easier to turn it off in general.

Again the believer finds much evidence for God in many things. What qualifies as evidence really is the question.

That's a very good question. The issue does indeed turn on this question.

I'd say "objectively verifiable" evidence qualifies.

Note, witness of the spirit does not qualify.

I'm interested in whatever objectively verifiable evidence you or anyone else can muster for God's existence.

[_beastie]

Despite all the bravado, I guarantee that if Ray and Cog were to develop a disease like, say, meningitis, they'd go to a doctor for antibiotics instead of simply relying on a priesthood blessing.

This conversation has followed a very predictable pattern. The discussion is about reliable tools for ascertaining the validity of certain truth claims, that exist external to oneself. Yet believers cannot resist changing the topic to beauty, art, and internal values. I'm surprised that none has yet questioned if I believe in love.

If the belief of God is simply the equivalent of high art, beauty, or love, then why even pretend to have claim to "evidence" that should satisfy?

Actually, now that I think about it, placing the belief in God on the same plane as good art has a lot of good sense behind it. It's not about an external reality that can be objectively identified - it's about how it makes you feel.

And once again, when believers wish to demean atheism, they turn it into a religion. :O

[_Ray A]

Despite all the bravado, I guarantee that if Ray and Cog were to develop a disease like, say, meningitis, they'd go to a doctor for antibiotics instead of simply relying on a priesthood blessing.

I actually have what might be called "doctor-phobia" and "dentist-phobia", but it has nothing to do with relying more on PH blessings. I did in fact have an infected wisdom tooth a couple of weeks ago and needed antibiotics. That dentist gave me a summary of what needed to be done, in the long term, and will cost me just over $1,000. Yet in 1999 another dentist told me I needed work which could cost between $5,000 - $10,000. Now both are unlikely to be right, or maybe one of them is just a little more keen on money, or maybe there's some snag I'm missing. I have had similar experiences with doctors, and one doctor told me they don't always get it right, and sometimes misdiagnose. In fact, more people die in hospitals than anywhere else. I could be sarcastic, but obviously I respect medicine, but I don't believe it's as reliable as many think. In the 1940s Nathan Pritikin got heart disease and was basically told to go home and prepare to die. Don't exert yourself at all, whatever you do, he was told. On top of that he also got cancer, which he was told was also terminal. Pritikin decided to give conventional science a miss because it offered him no hope, and he studied the dietary habits of the of the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico, who were famous for their long distance running feats. He eventually created the Pritikin diet, and not only beat heart disease and cancer, but ran 5-10 kilometres a day. The cancer came back in his mid 60s. For years Pritikin was ridiculed by "conventional science", and branded a heretic, yet today the basic principles of what he discovered long before the professionals is now common knowledge. Debates about diet still continue, of course, and even his diet is not perfect, though it also saved the life of marathon runner Rolet deCastella, father of Rob, who was a world class marathon runner of Olympic standard. Rolet was baffled why he suffered a heart attack as he was so fit, and he was told by his doctors never to run marathons again. Rolet completely overcame heart disease through the Pritikin diet, and within five years was running marathons again, and as far as I know is still alive today. Point? What is considered "heresy", or "silly" today may be commonly accepted tomorrow. I realise God has never been proved, but 76% of US doctors still believe in God. Maybe it's all fluff, silly stuff, but they have their reasons for believing. It might be "silly" to you, but it's not to them. I would not consider someone who got through medical school a dummy, or maybe we can just class them too in the question as to why smart people believe silly things. It seems to be, then, a the case with some atheists, "everybody is mad, except me and thee, and sometimes I even suspect thee".

This conversation has followed a very predictable pattern. The discussion is about reliable tools for ascertaining the validity of certain truth claims, that exist external to oneself. Yet believers cannot resist changing the topic to beauty, art, and internal values. I'm surprised that none has yet questioned if I believe in love.

If the belief of God is simply the equivalent of high art, beauty, or love, then why even pretend to have claim to "evidence" that should satisfy?

I do not pretend any such thing. I have mentioned before that I have never experienced real romantic love, but I've talked to many people who have, and they tell me there's nothing like it. I have read their poetry, and their deep thoughts on this thing called "love". Should I assume, because I have never experienced it, that it doesn't exist? Where is the evidence, for me? No where. Yet I do believe what these people say, even if I can't internalise such intense feelings.

Actually, now that I think about it, placing the belief in God on the same plane as good art has a lot of good sense behind it. It's not about an external reality that can be objectively identified - it's about how it makes you feel.

No, not external reality, internal reality. Is love real?

And once again, when believers wish to demean atheism, they turn it into a religion. :O

The unbelievers have already done a perfect job of that.

Beastie, your logical mind is working overtime, and there's far, far more to life than pure logic, and much that we personally experience cannot be proved to others. You want this experience defined in a lab, and if it can't be defined - it's an illusion.

[_beastie]

I chose one very clear example - the use of antibiotics to treat an illness that is proven to respond to antibiotics. (the fact that the medical field isn't always reliable is a completely different discussion) The fact that antibiotics cure certain diseases, due to the fact that the diseases are caused by bacteria, is an external reality - one that can be tested and verified. One you don't have to believe in before it will work. It works whether or not you believe in it, because it is an external, objective reality.

If God truly does exist, then his existence is an external, objective reality. He exists whether or not I believe he exists. If, in addition, that God also intervenes in mankind, that is another external, objective reality.

That is what Dawkins is talking about, not subjective states such as appreciation of beauty and love. Coggins diverted the conversation to subjective states for a reason, and that reason is that Dawkins is correct, and the only way Coggins can challenge it is to attempt to change the topic and hope no one notices.

If you agree there is no evidence of God's existence that should satisfy, then what are we debating? Dawkins is, in fact, correct.

The assertion that atheists turn atheism into a religion is nonsense, dependent upon changing the meaning of the word "religion".

[_why me]

Dawkins also wanted to point out in his last book the danger of imposing a set of religious beliefs on children, and raise consciousness of the fact that they aren't Mormon children, muslim children, or catholic children; they are children of Mormon, muslim, or catholic parents.

Yes, that is right. However, Dawkins perhaps misunderstood the socialization process that all children experience. And although it may be true that children receive there religious belief from parents in the main, they also receive other behavioral patterns from children. And if Dawkins has children, it can be assured that he has given them his own socialization process. A person cannot live in a social void without experiencing some form of belief system from others.