How do you explain self organisation in nature?

[ElanJo]

I'll look forward to it.

I'd also be extremely interested in your evidence for your theism. I'm happy to have an honest and polite discussion with you on this topic. In fact I'd much prefer it.

OK Part 1 only I'm afraid - a bit pushed for time tonight but a promise is a promise. This is just a question of record anyway, we both know that.

It's a surprise to me at least that I have failed to find any quotes which demonstrate incontrovertibly that Dawkins has said he believes atheism is a necessary consequence of his understanding of evolution but there is this answer to the question "Is atheism the logical extension of believing in evolution?" Dawkins says "They clearly can't be irrevocably linked because a very large number of theologians believe in evolution. In fact, any respectable theologian of the Catholic or Anglican or any other sensible church believes in evolution. Similarly, a very large number of evolutionary scientists are also religious. My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism." (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2005/11/The-Problem-With-God-Interview-With-Richard-Dawkins.aspx?p=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-R ... s.aspx?p=2</a>)

I'm not at all sure that the first part of that reply links to what he would take to be a proper understanding of evolution.

he has also said

"An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

and

"The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism. Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things.
-- Richard Dawkins, from The New Humanist, the Journal of the Rationalist Press Association, Vol 107 No 2"

Enough there I think to see why his friends and his opponents alike make the assumption that Dawkins regards evolution an obvious antidote to the poisonous delusions of Abrahamic theism.

As you say, they are assumptions. Dawkins has never argued, to my knowledge at least - and, as you have found out, googles knowledge aswell, that evolution disproves the existence of (a) God. It is an answer to a part of the mysteries of life, and in that sense satisfies the non believer on the subject of how we were 'created' - which previously was monopolised by theism, but that's all it is. The understanding and acknowledgement of evolution will naturally lead to one questioning his/her theistic beliefs but, as evidenced, not necessarily abandoning them altogether.<br /><br />-- Fri Jul 16, 2010 11:33 pm --<br /><br />

Why has what The Dawkins said or didn't say become so important?

It couldn't be that belief in Dawkins has become a matter of faith, could it?

Certainly seems like that.

JC made a claim. I asked him to back it up. Simple really.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your wit. Highly original. Does Richard Dawkins even exist??

 

[mammutly]

[

Why has what The Dawkins said or didn't say become so important?

It couldn't be that belief in Dawkins has become a matter of faith, could it?

Certainly seems like that.

JC made a claim. I asked him to back it up. Simple really.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your wit. Highly original. Does Richard Dawkins even exist??

Is existence a necessary condition for belief now? ( let me know when it changes again)

Clever chap that you are EJ, you do seem to forget just how many logical cul de sacs you have held up as examples of other people's supposed stupidity.

 

[ElanJo]

[

JC made a claim. I asked him to back it up. Simple really.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your wit. Highly original. Does Richard Dawkins even exist??

Is existence a necessary condition for belief now? ( let me know when it changes again)

Clever chap that you are EJ, you do seem to forget just how many logical cul de sacs you have held up as examples of other people's supposed stupidity.

Sorry, I was just joining in with the tone :(. Portraying atheists and atheism in religious language is new to me. As I said - highly original stuff Mr. Muttley

 

[tonea2003]

Why has what The Dawkins said or didn't say become so important?

It couldn't be that belief in Dawkins has become a matter of faith, could it?

Certainly seems like that.

got lost down the thread

Well, I'm not religous, though I do believe in God ( after a fashion)

mammutly
i'm interested in this statement, what do you mean after a fashion?
by being not religious by default you don't believe

 

[sweynforkbeard]

Why has what The Dawkins said or didn't say become so important?

It couldn't be that belief in Dawkins has become a matter of faith, could it?

Certainly seems like that.

On my last visit to Canterbury Cathedral I removed all the religious regalia from one of the side chapels and set up framed photographs of Dawkins and Bertrand Russell. Within 15 minutes candles had been lit beside each picture and four people were kneeling in prayer.

 

[tonea2003]

Why has what The Dawkins said or didn't say become so important?

It couldn't be that belief in Dawkins has become a matter of faith, could it?

Certainly seems like that.

On my last visit to Canterbury Cathedral I removed all the religious regalia from one of the side chapels and set up framed photographs of Dawkins and Bertrand Russell. Within 15 minutes candles had been lit beside each picture and four people were kneeling in prayer.

if they were at least they were doing so in someone real not unlike the redoubtable mr titmus

 

[sweynforkbeard]

On my last visit to Canterbury Cathedral I removed all the religious regalia from one of the side chapels and set up framed photographs of Dawkins and Bertrand Russell. Within 15 minutes candles had been lit beside each picture and four people were kneeling in prayer.

if they were at least they were doing so in someone real not unlike the redoubtable mr titmus

I was most distressed to recently discover in an unsavoury publication that I had concealed between the pages of The Daily Telegraph, that an Abigail Titmus was rumoured to have had a romantic relationship with someone from Blue Peter, John Noakes possibly, and then forged a career by displaying her bosoms to all and sundry. Not our sort of people I fear.

 

[tonea2003]

if they were at least they were doing so in someone real not unlike the redoubtable mr titmus

I was most distressed to recently discover in an unsavoury publication that I had concealed between the pages of The Daily Telegraph, that an Abigail Titmus was rumoured to have had a romantic relationship with someone from Blue Peter, John Noakes possibly, and then forged a career by displaying her bosoms to all and sundry. Not our sort of people I fear.

the curse of the unsavoury publication, it wasn't worm charmers bi-monthly perchance?

 

[sweynforkbeard]

I was most distressed to recently discover in an unsavoury publication that I had concealed between the pages of The Daily Telegraph, that an Abigail Titmus was rumoured to have had a romantic relationship with someone from Blue Peter, John Noakes possibly, and then forged a career by displaying her bosoms to all and sundry. Not our sort of people I fear.

the curse of the unsavoury publication, it wasn't worm charmers bi-monthly perchance?

Always pleasant to meet a fellow subscriber.

 

[johnny crossan]

As you say, they are assumptions. Dawkins has never argued, to my knowledge at least - and, as you have found out, googles knowledge as well, that evolution disproves the existence of (a) God.
It is an answer to a part of the mysteries of life, and in that sense satisfies the non believer on the subject of how we were 'created' - which previously was monopolised by theism, but that's all it is. The understanding and acknowledgement of evolution will naturally lead to one questioning his/her theistic beliefs but, as evidenced, not necessarily abandoning them altogether.

So it’s back to Part 1, it could be a long time before I get to Part 2 at this rate.
First, I do hope you're not one of those who get sniffy about using google or wiki etc, I certainly wouldn't want to add to Dawkins' overflowing coffers by actually buying any of his propaganda. Second, a plea not to write "(a) God" instead of just God. I keep expecting "(b) something else". Thirdly the part I have highlighted above I just can't let pass.

I don’t know whether you a paraphrasing or quoting Dawkins. Either way it is an example of how he leads his admirers away from positive engagement and towards contemptuous arrogance. This is why I think Dawkins is dangerous. He has spent a long time now thinking about religion and listening to thoughtful religious people yet he persists with a parody. Dawkins constantly takes the most literal, least sophisticated, reading of religious myth, in this case a creation story, as if it were historical truth. He fails completely to understand that religious faith is not primarily a matter of the intellect, that it is essentially an expression of commitment, the acceptance of a particular revelation. (I'm not saying all religious faith is necessarily good of course, but it is not the same as belief in God. You can be religious and not believe in God (like Theravadin Buddhists) and vice versa (just like Mr Muttley.)