Archaeologica.org

I don't disagree with you, Ish. I see your point and agree that Dawkins can come across much like a religious fundamentalist would. But I also have to say that, while it may be just as wrong, Christians have been lambasting science for so long that is about time it happened the other way around. If poor little children were getting bashed about all the time about how science disproves god, I would probably get a bit more riled up over it. I don't think the way to open up children's thought processes is to scare them to or away from science. Just give kids the facts we know and admit what we don't. They then can experience the joys of self discovery and that is something we don't let them do often enough.

Minimalist wrote:
Ish, if your Spirits (or their followers, rather) were jumping up and down saying we should be sacrificing virgins to the volcano god, there would be a reaction against them, too. They are not so they do not get any attention.

One deals with the problem at hand.

How do you know what my spirits are saying?

However, I wasn't aware that the Christian Literalists were jumping up and down saying we should be sacrificing virgins to the volcano god? I have to ask the question ... are there any left?

Seriously, though, I agree that we shouldn't let creationists teach science. By the same token, neither should we let Richard Dawkins teach religion, which is what he's been trying to do.

pattylt wrote:I don't disagree with you, Ish. I see your point and agree that Dawkins can come across much like a religious fundamentalist would. But I also have to say that, while it may be just as wrong, Christians have been lambasting science for so long that is about time it happened the other way around. If poor little children were getting bashed about all the time about how science disproves god, I would probably get a bit more riled up over it. I don't think the way to open up children's thought processes is to scare them to or away from science. Just give kids the facts we know and admit what we don't. They then can experience the joys of self discovery and that is something we don't let them do often enough.

At last! A sensible, rational and logical response!

Thank you!

Unfortunately, though, Dawkins wasn't just giving the "kids the facts we know and admitting what we don't," and then letting them "experience the joys of self discovery." He was telling them that there was no God and that science had proved it. So there was nothing left for them to discover.

Incidentally, I hadn't mentioned this bit before but in fact, most of these British sixth-formers appeared to be Muslims. And so telling Muslim children that there is no God is a little bit different to telling the same thing to a bunch of secular white kids whose parents don't have a clue whether there ia a God or not and couldn't care less.

Those Muslim children looked really dismayed that Dawkins was putting them in conflict with their parents and what their parents had taught them. And Muslims kids are brought up to respect their parents - a lot more than non-Muslim kids are. So Dawkins was irresponsible there too. It's OK playing with students' heads when they're at university and thus more mature and free from parental influences - but not when they've got to go home to their parents and I expect, they probably didn't even tell their parents that this happened - that this man had come to their school and said etc etc ...they probably just tried to live with the confusion.

But anyway, on your point, Patti, about

Christians have been lambasting science for so long that is about time it happened the other way around.

I don't agree that two wrongs make a right, Patti, especially when children are on the battlefield.

How do you know what my spirits are saying? Laughing

History tells us that these spirits always say the same thing.

However, I wasn't aware that the Christian Literalists were jumping up and down saying we should be sacrificing virgins to the volcano god? I have to ask the question ... are there any left? Laughing

Don't push the analogy too far.

Seriously, though, I agree that we shouldn't let creationists teach science. By the same token, neither should we let Richard Dawkins teach religion, which is what he's been trying to do.

I don't think anyone should teach "religion."[/quote]

Minimalist wrote: I don't think anyone should teach "religion."

The study of the history of religions has its place - as does science.

"History" of religion is one thing....and considering all the harm that has been done it is worth studying.

"Fairy tales" OTOH...........

Minimalist wrote:"History" of religion is one thing....and considering all the harm that has been done it is worth studying.

"Fairy tales" OTOH...........

Well, over here ... if they teach religion, it is the history of it that they teach.

No-one over here is taught that a particular religion is right and the one they must follow.

Is that done differently in the US?

Not yet...but it does vary state by state...which is another problem.

Minimalist wrote:Not yet...but it does vary state by state...which is another problem.

Yeah.. you have that funny method of governing yourselves over there.

Seeker

Here is a link to the three-part documentary that I've been talking about. It's called The Genius of Charles Darwin, and it is obvious that this is Dawkins' baby, that Dawkins decided what it should contain, put it together and then presented it. It also contains his latest thinking, having only been broadcast here for the first time a few weeks ago.

You can watch all three here:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2925, ... -Channel-4

You'll see from this that it is not a matter of badly edited soundbites. Dawkins is talking all the way through, non-stop, and in the very first five minutes, during the intro, you'll hear him say, very deliberately:

"I want to persuade you that evolution offers a much richer and more spectacular view of life than any religion. It's one of the reasons that I don't believe in God."

In other words, science disproves God.

Ishtar wrote:
Then we are in agreement.

So I don't understand why you are not in agreement with me also on the fact that Dawkins pushing his line in schools that "if you were scientific, you'd be an atheist", is actually a religious line and not a scientific one, and therefore as reprehensible as the creationists doing the same thing?

Because of what I wrote when you asked me why I don't believe in a God. The fact is that there is no more reason to believe in a God than there is to believe in Santa Claus. Scientific method suggests that one avoid making assumptions and let's face it, God is a very big assumption.

Ishtar wrote: That's actually a misrepresentation. I haven't read one particular book of Dawkins, but as I said at the beginning of this discussion, I have been studying him lately and listening to what he has to say in a wider media sense, including articles that he has written and a two-part documentary that he himself created to show his ideas. So I know probably as much as you do what the man thinks through what I've heard and read him say.

I have a pile of books waiting to be read and some of them, I know, I really need to read, so it's a question of findig enough time. But I am quite time poor these days. So for me to devote time to reading a book, I sort of have to make a business case to myself to do it. I cannot make a business case to myself to read this book on the strength of what you've told me. And I still hold to the view that if Dawkins had one ground-breaking, killer fact in that book the disproves God, I would already know about it and Dawkins would be getting the Nobel prize.

Of course, as you say, God cannot be disproved or proved by science. But Dawkins doesn't seem to think so ... and that's my point. And so that brings us back to my point - why is he confusing children with this line that because of scientific discoveries, he is an atheist?

Simply put, as it has been posted to you before, there are no events that have occurred that require a God to explain them and the assumption of a supernatural being is completely illogical. Dawkins is right in saying that children who learn science tend to lose their religiosity.

As to your time I certainly wouldn't want to dictate your priorities for you but I do think that a quick glance at world situation reveals that this is an important topic these days. Personally when I have a topic I consider important I make an effort to study all sides of it, even the side I don't agree with.

Ishtar wrote: I am reading your arguments, Seeker. I am hearing what you say. You just have a different view to me of Dawkins, and both our views are valid and based on the evidence that is available to us. Both of our conclusions are honestly held, and we should respect that.

I don't disrespect your opinions but I do feel that you gave short shrift to some of mine. Of course if all I wanted were my own opinions I would just talk to myself.

Ishtar wrote: No it doesn't. What's written in Genesis is not a literal explanation of the material world. It's an astrological allegory.

Sure but we also have what is written in Leviticus and other parts of the bible that purport to actually explain the world and set guidelines. we also have practices that purport to explain how the world works and attitudes in the bible the purport to be a template for how we should treat each other.

Ishtar wrote: Again, you are mispresenting me.

You will now know, if you've read my last post, that your above remark is a totally false assumption. You would also know that if you'd read my first post on this subject.

As I said in both of those posts, I've been reading and watching Dawkins a lot lately. In fact, the documentary was a two-parter that he himself had created to explain his views. That alone was two hours or so of him explaining to the cameras and to the schoolchildren why he is atheist and how science backs him up. If the doc was edited badly, designed to put him a light that misrepresents his views, Dawkins would have fixed it. It was his doc.

Then why have you gone so out of your way to misrepresent his positions? Seriously you seem to have taken one statement and completely ignored everything else the man has written.

Ishtar wrote: Er .. no. I don't, especially as I wouldn't need something like that explaining to me, as I already know it. Perhaps you meant to say 'as I explained' ... again a subtle difference but an important one.

I mean what I post

Ishtar wrote:
Again, a false assumption leading to a misrepresentation of my views.

You should know me enough by now to know that I wouldn't be afraid to read sometihng! Or write something! Not much phases me in that department although I cannot say the same, sadly, for the rest of my life.

Now that you've read my earlier comments on this false assumption about my motives for not readiing Dawkins book, I'm sure you'll withdraw your previous remarks.

And it doesn't have to be a soundbite. I am quite capable of explaining someone's views here on a certain issue, and you're an intelligent guy, so you ought to be too.

I'm not reframing the argument. I've made the same argument in every single post to the point of boredom. And so I'll say it again.

Science has not disproved the existence of God but I saw Dawkins with my own eyes and ears tellling schoolchildren that it has.

Ah, but I have explained my position, don't you remember? One of the surprises to me in this debate has been your mischaracterization of this point. No worries though, I know how people can get so wrapped up in their points that they ignore other people.

Ishtar wrote:

Minimalist wrote:"History" of religion is one thing....and considering all the harm that has been done it is worth studying.

"Fairy tales" OTOH...........

Well, over here ... if they teach religion, it is the history of it that they teach.

No-one over here is taught that a particular religion is right and the one they must follow.

Is that done differently in the US?

Actually one of the disturbing trends here in the US is that there is a lot of tacit teaching of 'Christianity uber alles' here. Gary Bauer, Reagan's former Undersecretary of Education and a one time Republican candidate for President of the US once famously said:

We are in a civil war over values in America - a war over the kind of nation we are and will become. It is over what we will teach our children about life and death, love and sex, and freedom and slavery.

Ishtar wrote: At last! A sensible, rational and logical response!

I resent this. I've dealt with you honestly and rationally throughout.

seeker wrote: Because of what I wrote when you asked me why I don't believe in a God.

I have never asked you why you don't believe in God. Not once. I have merely asked you to accept that Dawkins is preaching religion on the back of science.

You told me that I was wrong and that Dawkins was merely saying that a belief in God was not scientific.

But I have proved it by giving you to access to the documentary where he says, right at the beginning: "I want to persuade you that evolution offers a much richer and more spectacular view of life than any religion, and it's one reason why I don't believe in God."

That's all this discussion has been about, no matter how much you've tried to reframe it, and in the light of the above statement, I think you need to acknowledge that I was right.

The fact is that there is no more reason to believe in a God than there is to believe in Santa Claus. Scientific method suggests that one avoid making assumptions and let's face it, God is a very big assumption.

To assume that there is a God is a very big assumption.

To assume that there is not a God is also a very big assumption.

They are both big assumptions and nothing to do with science.

Simply put, as it has been posted to you before, there are no events that have occurred that require a God to explain them and the assumption of a supernatural being is completely illogical.

In your opinion. But not proved by science.

Dawkins is right in saying that children who learn science tend to lose their religiosity.

Of course they do if they're taught science by people like Dawkins.. if they learn to see through his eyes. This is just a matter of perception.

In any case, you are trying to turn this discussion into one about whether people who are atheists are superior to those who believe that there is a God because atheists think more clearly. This is not what this discussion is about.

It is also just your opinion and one, I might add, that you have a vested interest in.

You think it's OK to assume there is no God, but not OK to assume that there is one, when neither can be proved either way.

But it is just a matter of perception.

The very reasons that Dawkins gives for not believing in God, others have cited as the very reason for believing in God. Where Dawkins sees a senseless, purposeless, inexorable process of evolution, others gasp in admiration at the symetrical beauty and intelligence of the design of it, like the Fibonacci Spiral and so on. To them it is in a reason to believe in Superior Intelligence or Designer, while to Dawkins and yourself, it's the opposite.

So that's why it's all just a matter of opinion and thus not more scientific to not believe in God. You are not superior in your thinking, wisdom and intelligence to those who hold a different view. You are just different.

As to your time I certainly wouldn't want to dictate your priorities for you but I do think that a quick glance at world situation reveals that this is an important topic these days. Personally when I have a topic I consider important I make an effort to study all sides of it, even the side I don't agree with.

I think I'm ahead of you on this. Having already studied the theory of evolution as Darwinism when I was at college, I have read and seen a lot of Dawkins lately and not least watched much of this three hour series of programmes where he lays out all his latest thinking, which you haven't yet watched.

Again, what you think is important is not necessarily what others think is important.

What I think is important is that in these days when people are losing their faith in religion (rightly or wrongly) they are turning to science to give them the answers to the big questions. But it is not in science's remit to give these answers and neither is it capable of doing so. Most scientists know this and say so. Dawkins doesn't and is flogging a line in religion on the back of his scientific credentials and this is, I believe, as wrong as the creationists trying to flog a line in science on the back of their religious credentials.

And that's the only point I'm trying to make.