Donny's Ramblings

I think Richard Dawkins, like myself, is a Fundamentalist Agnostic. He’s atheist in practice, because there are no existing definitions of God that are congruent with reality. He hasn’t shut the door on the possibility of God, and neither has Hitchens, Dennett or Harris. They’re all just reasonable guys, who know that religious dogma is harmful. Check out some discussions going on at http://www.createcognitivedissonance.wordpress.com

Ben

I say I love this blog post!

It seems to me that you’re the one who cares about the semantics, not Richard.

He’s always openly stated that a God is possible, but that there is no evidence for one. A God is possible the way it is possible that a miniature John Travolta lives at the bottom of the forest. Anything is possible. That does not mean you should believe in it.

Carrie, I’m sorry but that is not at all what his quote, nor the article, suggests. Stating otherwise is, in my opinion, pure stubbornness.

You may also find these quotes of interest

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml
I was interested to hear your comments in a recent programme in the series Holloway’s Road. I was particularly struck by your remarks about the sense of awe and reverence which you have in the face of the universe. Has this ever led you to consider that there may be a god? from: C. Kerr

No. This would be an utter non-sequitur. Either there is evidence for a god (in which case you would not “accept the scientific account of reality” because the scientific account of reality would have been found wanting. That is what evidence would mean). Or there is no such evidence (as I and apparently you and Bishop Holloway believe). In which case what difference can the sense of awe and reverence engendered by the universe possibly make? On an atheistic view of the universe, it is STILL an awe-inspiring place. How could it not be, when it has engendered creatures capable of understanding and appreciating it? What would be truly absurd would be to wake up in a universe, whether with or without a god, and NOT feel awe and reverence at the fact of one’s own existence.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1219,The-Atheism-FAQ-with-Richard-Dawkins,Diganta-Richard-Dawkins

In your book, you’ve said that God ‘almost certainly’ does not exist. Why are you leaving open the possibility?

Any scientific people will leave open that possibility, that they cannot disprove whatever unlikely the event might be. I would be the first person to accept God once evidence comes in favour of it.

Um, I read the article and the quote. In what way does ‘belief in the possibility of a “transcendent ‘gigantic intelligence’ existing beyond the range of human experience” contradict all his consistent statements on the possibility of God?

Maybe you mean that the article’s author wrote it without context, so that if you know nothing about Dawkins, you might on face value interpret this to mean that he actively believes in a higher power. You need only re-read the attribution (‘belief in the possibility’) and refer to any of his writings and statements to clear your head of any intentional or unintentional deception.

Maybe you mean that the article’s author wrote it without context, so that if you know nothing about Dawkins, you might on face value interpret this to mean that he actively believes in a higher power. You need only re-read the attribution (‘belief in the possibility’) and refer to any of his writings and statements to clear your head of any intentional or unintentional deception.

Once again I believe this is a case of “what you look for you will find”. Perhaps Dawkins is more of a genius than I give him credit for…

In one film clip he is admitting to the possibility of aliens seeding this planet but stating that said aliens would have had to evolve the same way we did (as if he has the knowledge of what life conditions would be on their planet – ha! – pretty arrogant, in my opinion, to assume that he possibly could) and in the article above he concedes the possibility of intelligence beyond the understanding of humans, and still the flock of his “followers” somehow believe he is an atheist.

Fascinating.

Right. Because he says over and over what he means by atheist. He believes (and I do too) that it would be unscientific to assert that you know beyond any other possibility, that there is no God. The same way that you cannot assert that you know beyond any other possibility that there is one. He is a non-theist in that he does not espouse any theistic explanations for the universe. I don’t think he’d care if you felt that ‘agnostic’ was a better term for this. Or in any case, I sure don’t. But on that level, you’d better be an agnostic too.

It seems Mr. Dawkins is unsure of his own beliefs, to be honest. In some clips he flat out denies the possibility of God. In others he concedes to the possibility.

Sounds to me like the man is conflicted inside.

—-

Lots of Dawkins clips on Youtube for those wishing to become more familiar with him:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=richard+dawkins

If you’ve seen anything where he actually (and without editing) denies the POSSIBILITY of a God, I would love love love to see it.

Carrie,

Perhaps memory does not serve me well, but I am pretty sure I have seen him deny the possibility of God when watching multiple youtube clips. However, this weekend I am busily finishing up the final touches on two papers that are due to be handed in on Monday, and because of that I cannot take the time to review Richard Dawkins clips.

My point is that Richard is championed a prominent atheist by many, yet his admissions that a “gigantic intelligence” might exist or that we may have been seeded by aliens seems to indicate that he is not, in fact, a pure atheist.

His position seems to be made more clear by stating that “the God Delusion” is targeted primarily at fundamentalists. This seems to suggest that his problem is not with God but with those who claim to represent God. That, too, was the conclusion I reached in my own life near the end of my porn career. Once I realized the root of my real problem my life was changed.

I’m not talking a “head knowledge” , either. I mean, once I realized way deep down inside of my being that God really did want to interact with me, regardless of whether or not I believed the parameters Christians placed on that interaction, I was set free. I will not be surprised if someday Richard Dawkins reaches that same place. His attitude towards fundamentalists reminds me much of my own.

Memory, indeed, does not serve you well.

Your only problem seems to be with him using the term ‘atheist.’ That’s why he gives his definition of the term over and over. It would be ridiculous for anyone to claim they know there is no God. Just as ridiculous as it is that some claim there is one.

If you don’t want to call him an atheist, I couldn’t care less, and I doubt he would either. That’s why many of us, who aren’t active believers, flip between the terms ‘atheist’ and ‘agnostic.’ We believe that everyone should be agnostic in their pursuit of the truth. We also believe that there is little to no reason to believe that a God exists.

Call us whatever you want.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheist

Noun

* S: (n) atheist (someone who denies the existence of god)

Right. This is why, to repeat, you have to give your own definition before you call yourself anything. Richard Dawkins explains what he believes over and over. You are the one hyped up on what to call it.

You’ll notice that my myspace profile says I am an agnostic. Feel free to call me that. Feel free to call Richard Dawkins that. Just as long as you realize it doesn’t mean we think there is equal evidence for a God and against one.

I look forward to your thoughts on the evidence for God presented in D’Souza’s book.

Some people, after publicly stating their opinions on a subject, stubbornly stick to that subject no matter what evidence is presented. I would hope that you will not be one of those people.

If D’Souza’s thoughts on the subject aren’t enough to change your mind I am afraid nothing will be.

I publicly stated belief in God for years and years. I just want to know the truth.

I’ll let you know how the book goes.

I just posted another one that might be of interest. I haven’t read it myself, however. I’ve just browsed through it a bit.

http://donnysramblings.com/2008/08/16/thank-god-for-evolution/

a couple of things.

why does anyone care that much about what richard dawkins thinks to begin with?…he is just someone whos very vocal about his opinion..he is a personality, not THE benchmark that we base OUR opinions on. and he is totally wrong about the outlook of science in regards to God or that science itself is atheistic. thats crap, atheism is not science, its a worldview, an interpretation of the facts. its a metaphysical statement, not empirical. he is just as guilty as the fundamentalists he criticizes. towards the end of the debate between him and john lennox..he invokes the anthropic principle and the theory of multiverses to explain the sheer luck of humanity, and even admits that its not as satisfying an answer but an answer none-the-less. for one..the theory of multi verse cannot even be falsified..meaning as of now, its conjecture, a statement of faith. i think that richards opinions are probably based on %45 INTERPRETATION of fact and the other %55 is faith.

and donny is right. the guy is conflicted…the guy doesnt even know and concedes that the world and the universe do look designed and of course if your familiar with his work, youll know how he sweeps that under the rug. but theres another component to the design thing…you may criticize the design of the universe as being” faulty” if you wish, but one thing youd have to admit is that the universe does have breathtaking regularity, as newton expressed. the sun goes down, the sun comes up, the tides roll in, the tides roll out etc.

there are plenty of good theistic scientists…im not even going to call them “christian” scientists. christianity is a belief system that one could have AFTER already believing in a GOD. i myself am a christian..but it does me little good explaining theology when someone doesnt even believe in GOD to begin with. so i wouldnt start there.

heres some old school theistic scientists:

newton
kepler
galileo
copernicus
pascal
boyle
mendel

and heres a quote from paul davies:

People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.

you cant really argue with that.

and just food for thought

what if there really was a God and you DID have to operate by faith?
and not by compulsion but by necessity

please please watch this…if your impatient, forward up to about 9-10 minutes into it. ive never heard it explained like this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4065080646891971315&ei=tXmnSPXlF4PM4ALP1Jwl&q=gerald+schroeder

I love that the sun “goes up” and “goes down” in your world. There is a God!

semantics lol.

i actually posted the video for both you and donnie to watch, or whoever. did you get a chance to watch it?