Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    But given that the whole discussion of religion and/or any belief system is unscientific (i.e. cannot be based on empirical (sp?) evidence) what is the difference between Dawkins trying to convert people to his belief system (be it atheist or agnostic or whatever) and Christian missionaries trying to convert people to theirs?

    Aren't Dawkins et al simply proselytising for a new religion that they have come up with?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone who claims that Dawkin's is 'bigoted' (lol), a 'fundamentalist' or any other tag genuinely deluded. There are times when I myself think that Dawkin's can be rather simplistic, perhaps a tad arrogant, but we shouldn't confuse passion with narrow-mindedness. To someone who believes in some form of a supernatural force but do not necessarily have a book written by some men or 'god' thousands of years, Dawkin's arguments can be accomidated. The people who often feel threatened by Dawkin's are those who believe in a personal god, and various dogma that go against common sense and science, e.g. those people who choose their religious beleif's above scientific fact and etc.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1.9.8.4.)
    Anyone who claims that Dawkin's is 'bigoted' (lol), a 'fundamentalist' or any other tag genuinely deluded. There are times when I myself think that Dawkin's can be rather simplistic, perhaps a tad arrogant, but we shouldn't confuse passion with narrow-mindedness. To someone who believes in some form of a supernatural force but do not necessarily have a book written by some men or 'god' thousands of years, Dawkin's arguments can be accomidated. The people who often feel threatened by Dawkin's are those who believe in a personal god, and various dogma that go against common sense and science, e.g. those people who choose their religious beleif's above scientific fact and etc.
    This is crap. See TGD, the bottom of p36.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    But given that the whole discussion of religion and/or any belief system is unscientific (i.e. cannot be based on empirical (sp?) evidence) what is the difference between Dawkins trying to convert people to his belief system (be it atheist or agnostic or whatever) and Christian missionaries trying to convert people to theirs?

    Aren't Dawkins et al simply proselytising for a new religion that they have come up with?
    No.

    The religious beliefs of most people on earth can, to a certain extent, be analysed and scrutinized scientifically.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    This is crap. See TGD, the bottom of p36.
    Wow. Dawkins missed a trick by not splitting his book into chapters and verses for quotation purposes
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1.9.8.4.)
    No.

    The religious beliefs of most people on earth can, to a certain extent, be analysed and scrutinized scientifically.
    How would one scrutinise the proposition that "God exists", scientifically?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1.9.8.4.)
    No.

    The religious beliefs of most people on earth can, to a certain extent, be analysed and scrutinized scientifically.
    How do you propose to analyse a belief in spiritual forces that are inherently non-measurable in any scientific way?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    This is crap. See TGD, the bottom of p36.
    Actually, it's not crap. Dawkin's may argue that he opposes all forms of 'god' but that does not change the fact that the vast bulk of his arguments are against a personal 'god' and common religious doctrine e.g. homosexuals should go to hell, the entire universe was created in 7 days (lol) and etc.

    I know many people who are deists and who completely agree with Dawkin's.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1.9.8.4.)
    Actually, it's not crap. Dawkin's may argue that he opposes all forms of 'god' but that does not change the fact that the vast bulk of his arguments are against a personal 'god' and common religious doctrine e.g. homosexuals should go to hell, the entire universe was created in 7 days (lol) and etc.

    I know many people who are deists and who completely agree with Dawkin's.
    Good for them. But Dawkins opposes Deism, and explicitly states that he is arguing against "anything and everything supernatural". This precludes deism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    This is crap. See TGD, the bottom of p36.
    I have the paperback version, which is different. Could you tell me the chapter and so on?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    How would one scrutinise the proposition that "God exists", scientifically?
    Science cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural force, but it can eat away at the claim that there is a personal god who grants our prayers, who intervenes in the world via miracles, causes natural disasters and etc.

    Many religious people on earth today still believe that god created humans and all other non-human animals in 7 days, even though this spits in the face of science. Science in similar ways can attack these religious doctrines which are at the heart of religious belief, especially among the Abrahamic religions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1.9.8.4.)
    Science cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural force, but it can eat away at the claim that there is a personal god who grants our prayers, who intervenes in the world via miracles, causes natural disasters and etc.
    No, it is equally incapable of disproving the idea of a personal god as it is any other kind of God/supernatural force.

    (Original post by 1.9.8.4.)
    Many religious people on earth today still believe that god created humans and all other non-human animals in 7 days, even though this spits in the face of science. Science in similar ways can attack these religious doctrines which are at the heart of religious belief, especially among the Abrahamic religions.
    Only a small minority of Christians believe the earth was created in, literally, seven days, or that the earth has existed for less than 10,000 years, for that matter.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1.9.8.4.)
    Science cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural force, but it can eat away at the claim that there is a personal god who grants our prayers, who intervenes in the world via miracles, causes natural disasters and etc.

    Many religious people on earth today still believe that god created humans and all other non-human animals in 7 days, even though this spits in the face of science. Science in similar ways can attack these religious doctrines which are at the heart of religious belief, especially among the Abrahamic religions.
    How can science prove that the world was not created in 7 days or that it is millions of years old? It cannot prove that because it wasn't there to record it. It can only extrapolate backwards from current conditions which, according to religion, were themselves created at some point.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    Good for them. But Dawkins opposes Deism, and explicitly states that he is arguing against "anything and everything supernatural". This precludes deism.
    Yes, he argues against all forms of supernaturalism, but you have to understand the reasons behind his decision to do so. Yes, his opposition to 'anything and everything supernatural', may come across as arrogant, but I beleive he does it to put up a strong front against others. Slightly off topic, but there was a thread on the topic of abortion a few days ago and there I stated that if someone asked me to decide whether abortion should be illegal or legal throughout the entire pregnancy, I chose the option to legalise throughout the entire pregnancy even though I would normally not be in favour of such a radical change in the law. Now, I think Dawkins does a similar thing with super-naturalism in arguing against it in all forms.

    Don't know if that makes any sense lol.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    How can science prove that the world was not created in 7 days or that it is millions of years old? It cannot prove that because it wasn't there to record it. It can only extrapolate backwards from current conditions which, according to religion, were themselves created at some point.
    All kinds of things, fossils, geological evidence, radioactive dating and so on.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    How can science prove that the world was not created in 7 days or that it is millions of years old? It cannot prove that because it wasn't there to record it. It can only extrapolate backwards from current conditions which, according to religion, were themselves created at some point.
    Rubbish. The scientific community is quite unanimous when it comes to the age of the earth and the universe in general.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agamemnon)
    All kinds of things, fossils, geological evidence, radioactive dating and so on.
    That's not proof. Science doesn't prove. That's the whole point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    That's not proof. Science doesn't prove. That's the whole point.
    I know you can't prove anything, but the evidence is overwhelmingly with the people who believe that the earth is very old, not less than 10,000 years old.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agamemnon)
    Only a small minority of Christians believe the earth was created in, literally, seven days, or that the earth has existed for less than 10,000 years, for that matter.
    I don't think that's true. Recent polls have found that around half of Americans are creationists, and if in a developed, free country such as the United States, such a high proportion of people interpret Genesis literally, I doubt Christians in Africa and Latin America think differently.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1.9.8.4.)
    I don't think that's true. Recent polls have found that around half of Americans are creationists, and if in a developed, free country such as the United States, such a high proportion of people interpret Genesis literally, I doubt Christians in Africa and Latin America think differently.
    Hmm... you may be right, I don't know. Do you have links to those polls?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.