We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.
 |
 |
 |
Latest Activity
- Groups News
- Everything
doone replied to Dallas Gaytheist's discussion The AVM Video Thread in the group Animal | Vegetable | Mineral
Top Content
Birthdays
Richard Dawkins Turns to God to Answer A Question on Evolution
In his book The God Delusion, leading atheist Richard Dawkins famously argued that belief in a supernatural creator is irrational and that believing in God qualifies as a delusion, or "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong, contradictory evidence." But the 70-year-old British biologist was singing a different tune Tuesday during an appearance on BBC radio 4, when he invoked God to help him remember the full title of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, of which Dawkins is a great champion.
It happened this way. Reverend Giles Fraser – former canon chancellor of St. Paul’s Cathedral – was arguing with Dawkins over the true definition of a Christian. People who identify as Christians don't really know what they're talking about, implied the biologist (True).
"A majority of them don't seem to be truly Christian in the sense that they don't believe what Christianity teaches," Dawkins said. "Many of them don't go to church, they don't read the Bible – an astonishing number couldn't identify the first book of the New Testament … they just tick the Christian box."
All of which made him sound like a strict Mother Superior telling off her novices. But it was then that Fraser pulled a fast one. "If I said to you what is the full title of the Origin of Species," he said, "I'm sure you could tell me that." Dawkins really did try – you could almost hear the wobbling jowl – but he simply couldn't. "On the Origin of Species… er… with, oh God … [laughter] … On the Origin of Species… um… there is, there is a subtitle… with respect to the preservation of favored races in the f-f-fight … in the struggle for life."
Dawkins was pretty close. The book's full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. But his failure to summon the name on command has led a number of British media outlets to label the appearance as "deeply embarrassing" for Dawkins and claim "the High Priest of Darwinism doesn't know the title of his own secular bible."
Dawkins appeared on BBC Radio 4 Tuesday to discuss a poll on Christianity in Britain that was commissioned last year by his organization, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. The results of the poll reveal, among other data, that nearly two out of three people who consider themselves Christians cannot name the first book of the New Testament. (It is the Gospel According to St. Matthew)
Most of those who describe themselves as Christian (in Britain) – suggests the research – have only a low level of belief and practice of the religion. Half of those who say they are Christian rarely go to church while nearly 60% do not read the Bible. Dawkins told the Today program's Justin Webb that most people who call themselves Christian merely "tick the Christian box."
When asked whether the figures told us anything of use, Professor Dawkins insisted it "told us an awful lot" because it puts into doubt the place of Christian practices in society such as bishops in House of Lords and the presence of faith schools. However Reverend Fraser called the findings "extraordinary" and maintained that it was not fair to trump people's "self identification" as Christians. He said that "there are all sorts of ways to express Christianity" and that we should not be "purging religion from the public square."
Linda Woodhead, a professor of philosophy and religion at Lancaster University, wrote in the Guardian that Dawkin's poll shows Christianity in Britain is a difficult thing to define. She wrote:
“There's nothing new in Richard Dawkins's findings about the British way of being religious. But it's always good to be reminded of the findings of a poll commissioned by his Foundation for Reason and Science: that most of us are not "true believers" in either religion or in secularism and that Britain is neither a religious country nor a secular one, but an interesting mix of both. That doesn't make us muddled, or woolly, or confused – it just makes us British.”
The Complete Dialogue
Giles Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of 'The Origin Of Species', I'm sure you could tell me that.
Richard Dawkins: Yes I could.
Giles Fraser: Go on then.
Richard Dawkins: 'On The Origin Of Species' ... Uh. With, Oh God. 'On The Origin Of Species.' There is a subtitle with respect to the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.
Giles Fraser: You're the high pope of Darwinism … If you asked people who believed in evolution that question and you came back and said two percent got it right, it would be terribly easy for me to go 'they don't believe it after all.' It's just not fair to ask people these questions. They self-identify as Christians and I think you should respect that.
Tags: Britain, Christianity, Darwin, Dawkins
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Adriana on -
I have read some of Simon Baron-Cohen's work on autism and he basically says what you are saying, that autistic people can be taught rules but because they lack empathy, they do not come "equipped" with a moral sense like the "neurotypicals" (meaning non-autistic persons). He got into a lot of trouble from autistic bloggers who really took offense with his view of the autistic mind. I wonder if there are different kinds or different types of autism.
I could explain to you what went on in the mind of Alterio's character when he kidnapped the newborn baby girl, just like your grandma explained to you how to be a moral person, I don't know if it will be a long explanation, but it will bore everyone else here. We can discuss it by PM if you want.
-
Permalink Reply by Claudia Mercedes Mazzucco on -
A lot of your knowledge is coming from the internet, however, does internet exist? If I ask you, show me that the Internet exist, what would you show me … a computer, a laptop, a cell-phone … But these material things are not the Internet. They are a computer, a laptop, a cell-phone. Bill Gates and Steve Job, those geniuses of modern technology, have tricked you into believing that Internet is actually real, and this belief has assumed a quality almost of solidity and permanence.
In modern days, a good allegory for God would be: God is in the universe as internet is in your computer. The scientific mind always has the greatest difficulties to know God because Science is a sensation-thought oriented process of observation in which we learn how things work in a material universe but it is limited by its own premises. This is why Rabbi Lawrence Kushner said “God is not about science, nor is science about God.” This is a slogan we must remember regularly.
-
Permalink Reply by Bill on -
There is one thing that exists with the internet, but does not exist with gods: reciprocity. If you could show just one instance of reciprocity with a god, that would be very interesting.
-
Permalink Reply by Claudia Mercedes Mazzucco on
-
What are you really talking about, Bill, when you expect “reciprocity with a god”? What would you suggest?
-
Permalink Reply by Neal on -
Reciprocity with god is shown on a weekly basis, he loves sports and the people that play them. Athletes are always thanking him because of the favor he shows them.
If only we could get starving children, those with chronic diseases and all those who are suffering to play some damn football, we could save the world!
-
Permalink Reply by Adriana on
-
The internet analogy is just silly, sorry, Claudia. Of course the internet exists. It is a collection of computer networks, servers, worldwide, communicating and exchanging data with each other by using common software and file transfer protocols, etc. Without these very material things, there is no internet, since the internet is actually the whole collection of these material things. If I eliminated all these networks, boom, no internet.
It's like saying, does the mind exist? Show me the mind! The mind is a collection of thoughts, do they not exist because they cannot be "shown"? Of course they can be shown, you can express thoughts and make them known. And without a brain, there are no thoughts or mind. It would be like saying, does quantum physics exist? Show me electron entanglement! I cannot "show you" electron entanglement but I can measure it and show you the consequences of electron entanglement.
We use words to describe concepts. Does it mean a concept does not exist because it cannot be shown? If what you are trying to say is that God is a concept, then I agree. It is a product of the human mind, like all concepts.
If you use the internet allegory for God, then there is no reason whatsoever that science cannot comprehend God, because we can comprehend and actually understand how this vast collection of worldwide networks work. Science can understand and study concepts, not just "material" things. It all depends on how one defines matter. Energy is not matter, and science can study that. Energy can be seen measurements, even if indirect.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
© 2012 Created by Atheist Universe.
Powered by
