Why does Atheist Richard Dawkins sound religious? After all he agrees with most religions on Jesus?

Originally posted by Saurus

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Dawkins is a scientist and science would suggest all these things are impossible. Yet many people believe them to be true, just a small part of the dillusion.

Science is also a religion, which believes any "fact" which suits our theories.

At the start of the century, science taught that genetic features were contained in proteins (they did not know about DNA.)

They believed it as strongly as a Christian believes in Jesus.

But the scientists were wrong.

What gives you the right to say that science is any more true, or any less a belief than any other religion?

Very balanced post there Saurus!

Star for you

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by Saurus

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Dawkins is a scientist and science would suggest all these things are impossible. Yet many people believe them to be true, just a small part of the dillusion.

Science is also a religion, which believes any "fact" which suits our theories.

At the start of the century, science taught that genetic features were contained in proteins (they did not know about DNA.)

They believed it as strongly as a Christian believes in Jesus.

But the scientists were wrong.

What gives you the right to say that science is any more true, or any less a belief than any other religion?

Very balanced post there Saurus!

Star for you

I guess my point can be described by a Dawkins quote

"The true scientist, however passionately he may “believe”, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will

Fair enough.

I guess I agree with the Dawkins quote.

However, it must, then, be equally wrong to discredit religions based on lack of evidence. To declare himself an atheist is not in the same spirit as the quote.

It would be more consistent of Dawkins to say:
"I don't know if there is a God."

To declare an absence of one (based on evidence or lack thereof) is as big a leap of faith as declaring that there is one.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
....."The true scientist, however passionately he may “believe”, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will

That's not a bad quote...

But I'm no fundamentalist friend...

OT's more along the line of www.youtube.com...

Also the 'evidence' part, is he LOOKING?

For example, dozens of links below: www.godandscience.org...

Design vs. Naturalism - General Introduction for Non-Believers - What you must believe (i.e., not testable) as an atheist.
Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory? - A testable, falsifiable, predictive biblical creation model.
Religion and Intelligent Design Impede Science and Close Off Inquiry? Are we really anti-science?
Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe - Why are the physical constants the way they are? Is it chance or design?
Missing the Obvious - Kemo Sabi has a message for all you Tontos.
Extreme Fine Tuning - the Cosmological Constant - Would you believe 1 in 10120?
UFO's and Extraterrestrial Aliens - Why Earth Has Never Been Visited - Numerous laws of physics prevent visitation
Inflationary Big Bang Model - How it all started.
Size of the Universe: Isn't it Too Large to Have Been Created by God for Humanity? Why didn't God create just one star and one planet?
The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning - Contrary to atheist's claims, the majority of scientists state as fact that the universe had a beginning.
The Incredible Design of the Earth - Just the third rock from an ordinary star?
An Estimate of the Probability for Attaining the Necessary Parameters for Life Support - Table of probabilities.
Moons Like Earth's Moon are Rare in the Universe
Evidence for God's Existence from Cosmology ( PowerPoint file - 1.3 MB)
From the Beginning to Man- How God Declares His Love to Us Through the Design of the Universe ( PowerPoint file - 5.7 MB)
Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe - They say the funniest things, even though they still don't get it!
God of the Gaps - Do All Christian Apologetics Fall Into This Kind of Argument? - A survey of arguments reported to support the existence of God and whether they are just due to a lack of scientific knowledge.
Did David Hume Really Defeat William Paley's Watchmaker Argument? - Although revered by atheists, Hume was actually wrong about what he thought represented the reality of the universe.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? - Antony Flew Renounces Atheism - After actively promoting atheism for decades, Prof. Flew embraces deism, saying he "had to go where the evidence leads."
Book Review: There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Antony Flew
Does the Presence of Natural Evil Argue Against the Existence of God? Why Natural Evil Must Exist - Contrary to skeptical claims, nearly all "natural evil" is required for life to exist at all.
Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics Prove the Existence of God? - by John M. Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University
The Extradimensional Nature of God - How can God do that?
Take the Ultimate Atheist Challenge and Design Your Own Universe - Try your hand at it. It is not as easy as first impressions...
Alternative Universes - Your designs - can you do better?
Book Reviews
Book Review: More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation by Hugh Ross
Book Review: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is by Hugh Ross
Book Review: The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator's Artistry
Debunking Dawkins: The God Delusion
Book Review: Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars
Book Review: Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man
Book Review: Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off


Design in Biology
Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?
Examples of Bad Design Gone Bad - Evolutionists examples (human esophagus, Panda's thumb, vertebrate retina, appendix, junk Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA, etc.) of "bad" design refuted through new studies
The Washing Machine from the Bad Place- A Lesson on Intelligent Design - And you thought only biological systems could be poorly designed!
Response to "Dissecting Dembski's 'Complex Specified Information'" Can evolution produce specified complexity?
The Designing Times - The news the evolutionists don't want you to read!
Origins News - Recent news from the scientific community about the origins of humans and animals
When "Junk" Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA Isn't Junk - Definitive evidence for design and function of DNA that does not carry the information necessary to make a protein.non-coding Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA found! When your evolutionist friends tell you that all the junk Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA in our genes precludes an intelligent Creator, send them here!
Pseudogenes- Argument for Evolution and Against Design? - Not only are many psuedogenes transcribed, but some are even required for life.

Originally posted by Saurus
Fair enough.

I guess I agree with the Dawkins quote.

However, it must, then, be equally wrong to discredit religions based on lack of evidence. To declare himself an atheist is not in the same spirit as the quote.

It would be more consistent of Dawkins to say:
"I don't know if there is a God."

To declare an absence of one (based on evidence or lack thereof) is as big a leap of faith as declaring that there is one.

But there is no evidence of a God and which one. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution. Would it be right for Dawkins to discredit the idea of Santa Claus, as i imagine Dawkins holds Gods and Santa Claus to be just as preposterous ideas.

whoops double post

[edit on 16-11-2009 by woodwardjnr]

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Other evidence:
www.gotquestions.org...

That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.

In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.

A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?

Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.

How do we know God exists? As Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace. Things have occurred in our lives that have no possible explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved us and changed our lives that we cannot help but acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is already obvious. In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing..

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
....But there is no evidence of a God and which one. ...

Do you deny cause and effect?

In ordinary experience, one knows intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or, more incisively, "Why did this happen?"

When we try to trace the event to its cause, or causes, we find that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back.

Police investigators on an accident scene, for instance, use the principles of cause and effect every day to determine who was ultimately responsible and how it happened.

Eventually, we must face the question of the original cause—and uncaused First Cause.

A scientific experiment specifically tries to relate effects to causes, in the form of quantitative equations if possible. Thus, if one repeats the same experiment with exactly the same factors, then exactly the same results will be reproduced. The very basis of the highly reputed "scientific method" is this very law of causality—that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science in the modern sense would be altogether impossible if cause and effect should cease.

This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives: (1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes (nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects); or (2) an uncaused primary Cause of all causes (the One absolute Cause that initiated everything).

source: www.icr.org...

reply to post by woodwardjnr



W, thought this was interesting...

Physicist Receives Million-Pound Prize for Predicting a 'Hypercosmic God'
Share this Articleby Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
On March 16, 2009, the Templeton Foundation announced the winner of its annual 1 million pound sterling (1.42 million USD) prize, an amount that exceeds the payoff of the prestigious Nobel Prize.1 Bernard d’Espagnat, a French physicist at the University of Paris-Sud, will receive the award from the Duke of Edinburgh at Buckingham Palace at an elaborate ceremony in May. Dr. d’Espagnat was awarded the prize for his work using theoretical physics to predict the reality of a hypercosmic god, who exists outside of the physical universe.

The Templeton Prize was started in 1972 by Sir John Templeton, an American-born entrepreneur and businessman. Templeton’s goal was to provide monetary resources for research and discovery in science and philosophy, with a focus towards university faculty. Candidates for this award have typically performed research involving a strong metaphysical or spiritual side that very few researchers are willing to tackle.

Dr. D’Espagnat received the recognition specifically for his work in “concept reality,” an off-shoot from his decades of work in quantum mechanics. The goal of quantum mechanics is to provide a complete description/model of the physical world. However, if something exists beyond scientifically predictable phenomena, then there must be some other reality underlying the natural world, another dimension that is not based on time, distance, or physical constraints.

Additionally, events in one dimension are able to simultaneously affect events in the other dimension and distance is not an issue, even though the second dimension is non-local. D’Espagnat’s current hypothesis is that some unknowable divine entity operates in this underlying realm/dimension. In other words, theoretical physics now predicts the reality of a hypercosmic god.

In this model, there is no way to know this divine being or connect with him in a meaningful way. D’Espagnat’s notion of the impersonal/unknowable aspect of this god is not actually predicted by the model, but simply represents his own opinion on the matter.

It is interesting that one of the hottest fields in theoretical physics points towards a Divine Being or God and also predicts God’s divine attributes of omnipotence, immortality, omniscience, and omnipresence. What is even more exciting is that all of these findings line up with the description of God in the Holy Bible, except for one thing—He is knowable and we can connect with Him in a meaningful way through the forgiveness of sin available through His Son Jesus Christ.2

Although it is exciting that modern scientific research clearly points towards God, it does not take millions of dollars in government grants coupled with years of laborious research to prove His existence and know what He is like. His Divine attributes are clearly outlined in the Bible.

source: www.icr.org...

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Alil more on the EFFECT problem...www.icr.org...

There are two other "Universal Laws" that we see demonstrated in everything we examine in the world around us.

1. There is no new mass/energy coming into existence anywhere in the universe, and every bit of that original mass/energy is still here.

2. Every time something happens (an event takes place), some of the energy becomes unavailable.

The First Law tells us that matter (mass/energy) can be changed, but can neither be created nor destroyed. The Second Law tells us that all phenomena (mass/energy) continually proceed to lower levels of usefulness.

In simple terms, every cause must be at least as great as the effect that it produces—and will, in reality, produce an effect that is less than the cause. That is, any effect must have a greater cause.

When this universal law is traced backwards, one is faced again with the possibility that there is an ongoing chain of ever-decreasing effects, resulting from an infinite chain of nonprimary ever-increasing causes. However, what appears more probable is the existence of an uncaused Source, an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and Primary, First Cause

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
But there is no evidence of a God and which one. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution. Would it be right for Dawkins to discredit the idea of Santa Claus, as i imagine Dawkins holds Gods and Santa Claus to be just as preposterous ideas.

I understand your argument as follows:

Dawkins will believe anything for which there is (sufficient) current evidence. A lack of evidence means that Dawkins will not accept the existence of any 'fact' until such a time that there is sufficient evidence in favour of that fact. This is why he will also not accept the existence of Santa Clause.

OK, I can accept that line of reasoning, provided that he remains consistent with that reasoning.

However, even though I accept it, I do not find this reasoning very clever or useful, because:

Over the ages, we have been revising our evidence about facts time and time again. Very little that we once believed still holds true.

Statistically, at some time in the future, man will change his viewpoint on most matters of 'fact.'

This also means that statistically, Dawkins basing his idea of existence on current facts (with our very limited knowledge) means that he has a high probability of being wrong on most things that he believes.

Is this any better than someone who bases his ideas of existence on something for which there is no tangible evidence, but rather on a huge amount of intangible evidence called personal experiences?

I find it a much better policy to believe that anything could be true, but then to discard it once proved false. I do not believe in Santa Clause because Coca Cola company readily admits to having created him as a fictitious character based loosely on Saint Nicholas.

I just find rejecting something due to lack of evidence to be narrow minded.

Examples:

- "Fact" based on current evidence: Theory of relativity is correct.

- Intangible "fact" based on personal experience: You will think about and contemplate what I have said in this post.

The first may later be proven to be false.
The second, based on personal experience, is an absolute truth.

Which type of "fact" is really more accurate?

[edit on 16/11/2009 by Saurus]

[edit on 16/11/2009 by Saurus]

reply to post by Saurus


"Would it be fair to summarize your post as...?

"keep an open mind!"

you should check out the book "doubting dawkins" by Keith Ward.

Originally posted by ewokdisco
you should check out the book "doubting dawkins" by Keith Ward.

OK, btw, he's interviewed here, about the book...

See: www.publicchristianity.org...

Excerpt:

Professor Keith Ward is a world-renowned philosopher and theologian. He held positions teaching philosophy and theology at Glasgow, London and Cambridge Universities before taking up the position of Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by OldThinker]

Originally posted by OldThinker

"Would it be fair to summarize your post as...?

"keep an open mind!"

I would prefer to summarize it as:

Truths and facts gained from personal experience are often more accurate and more real than those based on scientific evidence.

Originally posted by ewokdisco
you should check out the book "doubting dawkins" by Keith Ward.

What are the key points of his arguments?

reply to post by OldThinker


You hit the nail on the head.

As a supporting statement, the reason why so many other philosophies/religions attempt to include Jesus as a "good guy" is simply to downplay His importance. If they all demonized Jesus, that would be the ultimate unintended glorification. So, make Him out to be a regular cool guy. It's a pretty boring trick, really. I guess you wouldn't think so if you were on the other side of the fence, though. Must look appealing. "I've been thinking about becoming a Buddhist... Christianity just doesn't cut it for me. There're so many hypocrites. Hey, look. The Buddhists say that Jesus was a heck of a guy. Hm. Yeah, he was, wasn't he? Maybe those Buddhists know what's up."

And you know... I didn't invent that. I've heard that come out of peoples' mouths before.

reply to post by OldThinker


I have a very open mind I've just written off the idea of there being a diety, same as i did with the tooth fairy. Just because I dont understand how the universe was created, doesen't mean I automatically make the assumption it was created by a God., who by your own argument must have been created. I am happy to say I dont know, rather than ascribe everything to a deity. Maybe one day you will be proved right and we will have irrefutable evidence of a deity, until that time I dont see any evidence. Maybe someone will prove the existance of the tooth fairy, then i would believe in the tooth fairy.

Pointing to exerts from the Bible wont change my mind, just like excerpts from the God Delusion wont change yours

[edit on 16-11-2009 by woodwardjnr]

Dawkins on Jesus

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by OldThinker

 

I have a very open mind I've just written off the idea of there being a diety, same as i did with the tooth fairy. Just because I dont understand how the universe was created, doesen't mean I automatically make the assumption it was created by a God., who by your own argument must have been created. I am happy to say I dont know, rather than ascribe everything to a deity. Maybe one day you will be proved right and we will have irrefutable evidence of a deity, until that time I dont see any evidence. Maybe someone will prove the existance of the tooth fairy, then i would believe in the tooth fairy.

Pointing to exerts from the Bible wont change my mind, just like excerpts from the God Delusion wont change yours

[edit on 16-11-2009 by woodwardjnr]

OK, thx for the clarity...

The difference between you and me (at this point in TIME) is you have a BELIEF...

But I have a RELATIONSHIP....

BIG Difference my friend....sorry.

OT