What do you think about Dawkins?

[Earthling]

Not really. Most people mean an intelligent super-powerful entity that interacts with humanity when they say "God". It's far more specific than just "outside catalyst responsible for the creation of the Universe"

Yeah, warpus is definitely right here. Even without the heavy connotations that capitalizing "God" comes with as well.

 

[Birdjaguar]

There is a larger picture here. Dawkins is not just a scientist shouting down or out arguing the irrational god-believers. He is a skilled and outspoken advocate of a new world order that has been taking shape for a long time.

Prior to the scientific revolution, the dominant paradigm for thinking about the nature of the world was one that had few rules and no boundaries. Reason, observation, experience, whimsy and imagination all had their place in defining the nature of all things. As such each culture defined the world in its own way. In the west Christianity played a leading in establishing the nature of creation. It based that view heavily on the Bible. Elsewhere, other themes were used to describe reality, but the same paradigm was held by all: there are no limits on what is real and possible and there are no (or few) rules for determining what is actually true. Such a paradigm permits points of view like biblical inerrancy, virgin births, astrology, demons, gods, magic, etc.
As the scientific revolution progressed this old paradigm was overturned by a new one that imposed first, rules for determining what is true and then limits on what is real. The limits were required to make the rules work. Observation and reason were now the basis for inquiry and physical existence the bounds of reality. Reality had limits and there was only one path to discovery. The acceptance of this model made almost all ideas based on the previous paradigm obsolete and out of date.

Fundamentalism, in all its forms here and abroad, is the last large hold out to this change. This is not to say that that they are wrong in an absolute sense, but just that within the now accepted scientific world view, they are no longer tenable. Traditional religious beliefs are outside the rules and boundaries of the current model of reality and therefore declared false. The only permitted path to acceptance is for them to come inside the boundaries of science and be tested by the rules. This is the argument made so well by Dawkins: “Show me proof of god.” For believers in the old paradigm it is resist or die. The minute they give in to the pressure to move their beliefs within the fence of scientific study, they are doomed. Their only defense is stick with the older view of reality that permits reason, observation, experience, whimsy and imagination as expressions of truth and allow for existence outside of the physical universe. The only real answer to charges made by Dawkins and others (like Winner ) is the one provided by Jesus as he was condemned by the Grand Inquisitor, who BTW, nicely fits the role of Dawkins. The “He” in the quote below is Jesus:

Having disburdened his heart, the Inquisitor waits for some time to hear his prisoner speak in His turn. His silence weighs upon him. He has seen that his captive has been attentively listening to him all the time, with His eyes fixed penetratingly and softly on the face of his jailer, and evidently bent upon not replying to him.

The old man longs to hear His voice, to hear Him reply; better words of bitterness and scorn than His silence. Suddenly He rises; slowly and silently approaching the Inquisitor, He bends towards him and softly kisses the bloodless, four-score and-ten-year-old lips. That is all the answer. The Grand Inquisitor shudders. There is a convulsive twitch at the corner of his mouth. He goes to the door, opens it, and addressing Him, 'Go, 'he says, 'go, and return no more... do not come again... never, never!' and--lets Him out into the dark night. The prisoner vanishes."

"And the old man?"
"The kiss burns his heart, but the old man remains firm in his own ideas and unbelief."

Within its framework science is a mighty force for learning about the physical universe and making very cool stuff. And I do not believe that it has run its course. But, now that science ascends towards its zenith and the old ways of thinking shrink in importance with the passing of each generation, what does the future hold? If we look back, I think that the future becomes clearer. Science has deep roots in the unstructured, anything-goes paradigm of the past that it destroyed. It is within science that we will find the seeds of the next paradigm shift which will overturn the rigidity of the scientific model in its quest for truth. What might such a new paradigm look like? Well, I don't think it will be in the silly crashing universes theory offered in recent years as the explanation for our existence. If I had to choose a direction to go, it would be towards the biocentrism of Robert Lanza and Bob Berman that looks to “consciousness” as the key to understanding reality rather than chemistry. In any case a new paradigm shift will come and what we believe now will not stand. The scientific method is a very rigid model, another version of the two dimensional “Flatland”, that will discover its own third dimension. That discovery will force it to recast reality in a whole new way. Given the rapid pace of scientific progress so far, it is only a matter of time before we discover that science is wrong, its view of reality is wrong and that a new set of tools is needed to probe the unknown.

 

[Berzerker]

Not really. Most people mean an intelligent super-powerful entity that interacts with humanity when they say "God". It's far more specific than just "outside catalyst responsible for the creation of the Universe"

Not really? You mean no one out there uses the word "God" to refer to a prime mover? I do, and many deists do too. Jesus H Christ

 

[cardgame]

Not really? You mean no one out there uses the word "God" to refer to a prime mover? I do, and many deists do too. Jesus H Christ

Most people

Reading is important!

 

[Berzerker]

God is the word some people use for that outside catalyst

"Some" is the word I used, Warpus said "not really"

how ironic in light of your snide comment, Warpus didn't read what I said, and you didn't either...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

David Bowie is the words I use.

So David Bowie created the universe.

 

[Winner]

*ahem*

1.) Assuming you believe that the universe hasn't existed forever, then you accept the fact that the universe has a beginning of some sort. If you accept that the universe has a beginning of some sort, then you accept that something caused the formation of the universe for there to be a beginning of some sort. Unless you believe that something can create itself, then the formation of the universe had to have been caused by something outside of it (Of course, if you believe that something can create itself, then I'd like an example, please). Ergo, people that outside force to be God.

That's it - they don't. If they only believed that something might have created our Universe, and proposed some sort of coherent scientific theory explaining how this might have happened, I wouldn't say a word against that.

The problem with believers is that they assign another properties to their God. According to them, he didn't only create the Universe. Supposedly, he also gave humans immortal souls, which he then sends to hell if they use another thing the supposedly gave them - their rationality

Believers make TONS and TONS of baseless claims about their God/gods, without any sort of evidence, without a tiny shred of proof. That is irrational, that is stupid and that makes them delusional.

2.) Assuming you believe the universe has always existed,

That is not what I said. I only pointed out that since the Big Bang is also the point when time as we know it started, there is no point in asking what was before it.

answer for me this question: "Which came first? The big bang or the big crunch?" Obviously, the question of "Which came first?" is pointless in a cyclical model, much like the question "Where does a circle" begin in non-sensical. The question "How did that circle get there?", however, is not. If you see a circle, you're not going to believe that the circle has been there forever. You're going to assume that someone or something caused that circle to be. Now, granted, you could always point out the fact that this isn't evidence for someone or something setting into motion the nature of the cyclical universe, but this begs the question of whether or not the universe has to conform to the laws present within universe.

We're getting to the usual argument used by the believers: "You don't know how the Universe began, so it might as well have been our God who created it."

Yes. It might as well have been the Invisible Pink Unicorn for all I know, the point is that I do not know. Cosmology has some theories which make my head hurt every time I try to read something about them, but I am sure many clever people are working hard on answering this question RATIONALLY, using scientific approach to the problem.

What believers do is that they make a claim, fail to back it up and then expect me to respect that claim. Well, that's not going to happen.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I tell you, it was the perfectly visible David Bowie.

There's a starman waiting in the sky
He'd like to come and meet us
But he thinks he'd blow our mind
There's a starman waiting in the sky
He told us not to blow it
Because he knows it's all worthwhile

He practically told us outright he is.

 

[Perfection]

Yeah, just like the John Cleese's video clip.

Yeah just like it...

For one Dawkin's brain is not a product of intelligent yet he believes his book (which claim there in no nature intelligent design) is so exactly where did the intelligence come from. He trying to use a intelligent design book as proof there is no nature intelligence even though he believe he is loaded with it.

Non intelligent processes (evolution) can produce intelligent things (us). I don't see what the big fuss is.

 

[Bei1052]

Whoa, how do you jump from "needed an outside catalyst for creation" to "It was God" ???

Just how I did. You want to engage in a game of semantics? Fine. You can call it <enter whatever name you want here> for all I care. What you call it isn't exactly important, though.

 

[Miles Teg]

There is a larger picture here. Dawkins is not just a scientist shouting down or out arguing the irrational god-believers. He is a skilled and outspoken advocate of a new world order that has been taking shape for a long time.

You know that rule that says once someone invokes Hitler in an argument, the discussion is over? (No, that's not Godwin's Law) We need a variation of that rule applied to the term "New World Order".

 

[Winner]

You know that rule that says once someone invokes Hitler in an argument, the discussion is over? (No, that's not Godwin's Law) We need a variation of that rule applied to the term "New World Order".

OT remark: we need to start applying the Blake's Law on this forum.

 

[Yared]

Ergo, people that outside force to be God.

You can call it <enter whatever name you want here> for all I care. What you call it isn't exactly important, though.

Edit:
Dude, please refrain from defining your god to be something like "an outside force". It's very, very vague. Read the quote in my signature.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Causality does not require that everything have a cause, it only requires that every change have a cause. That which is immutable needs no cause, and in fact cannot have a cause. The traditional claim that God is eternal, unchanging, and/or out of time itself thus negates any need for the creator to have had to be created.

(Of course, this view of God often proposed by philosophers doesn't always seem to fit that well with the God described in the bible. Perhaps even more importantly, our current understanding of physics seems to imply that it would be impossible for any entity to effect change on anything else without itself being changed somehow. In the Aristotelian world view God as the Uncaused Cause made perfect sense, but since Newton's laws it seems likely that the immutable not only cannot have a cause, but cannot be a cause. Assuming such laws apply even out of our time-space, it would seem to make the traditional defense powerless to defend even Deism.)

 

[Smidlee]

Yeah just like it...

Non intelligent processes (evolution) can produce intelligent things (us). I don't see what the big fuss is.

So where does this intelligences come from? Man believes and acts as if he is outside of nature. There is no doubt that nature processes produces our nature bodies yet what about that part which cause man to try to speak outside of his nature body. Obviously Dawkin doesn't think he having delusions.

Let's me try to put it another way, Dawkin believe God is a delusion because as he says it God is very improbable as if blind nature with nature laws eventually producing Dawkins who writes a book to saying that there is no god probable. It's this very problem with probability which cause some scientist's believe in multi-universes.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So where does this intelligences come from? Man believes and acts as if he is outside of nature. There is no doubt that nature processes produces our nature bodies yet what about that part which cause man to try to speak outside of his nature body. Obviously Dawkin doesn't think he having delusions.

Funny. What Evolution does is saying that man is part of nature. It's the creationist that tells us there's nature with animals, and there's us.

Let's me try to put it another way, Dawkin believe God is a delusion because as he says it God is very improbable as if blind nature with nature laws eventually producing Dawkins who writes a book to saying that there is no god probable. It's this very problem with probability which cause some scientist's believe in multi-universes.

One is probable, because it has evidence. The other is improbable because it hasn't.

Simple eh?

Oh and when you say blind nature ... it isn't. Stop pretending Evolution claims blind luck caused us to eventually evolve. If you think this, eductae yourself on what Evolution actually is. Because you have been displaying an impressive lack of understanding on the subject untill now, but don't hesitate to criticise it with, sorry I have to put it this way, laughable objections.

 

[Flying Pig]

Causality does not require that everything have a cause, it only requires that every change have a cause. That which is immutable needs no cause, and in fact cannot have a cause. The traditional claim that God is eternal, unchanging, and/or out of time itself thus negates any need for the creator to have had to be created.

Then we may as well say that some form of universe has always existed, and so take out God (I'm not 100% sure about the Big Bang theory, but my understanding of physics says there must have been something to turn into matter before it)

 

[Ayatollah So]

What was the answer implied? The only legitimate answer to the question is, "If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But I'm willing to take the chance, just as you're willing to take the chance that you're not wrong for not believing in the other religion instead."

By George I think you've got it.

 

[aelf]

By George I think you've got it.

But that wasn't exactly what's conveyed, even if it was intended. Thought he was into stating the truth

 

[Phlegmak]

There is a larger picture here. Dawkins is not just a scientist shouting down or out arguing the irrational god-believers. He is a skilled and outspoken advocate of a new world order that has been taking shape for a long time.

What on Earth do you mean about a new world order?

Causality does not require that everything have a cause, it only requires that every change have a cause. That which is immutable needs no cause, and in fact cannot have a cause. The traditional claim that God is eternal, unchanging, and/or out of time itself thus negates any need for the creator to have had to be created.

Not really true. A perfect object can be created, as long as we're talking about mythological things.

If we're talking about reality, nothing in the entire universe is unchanging.