Richard Dawkins: "It’s very unfortunate when you inadvertently find people agreeing with you who are the last people you would wish to agree with you. I mean, I despise Trump. I despise everything that he stands for. But it’s perfectly true that many people think that I ought to be on his side because he has these draconian, illiberal, horrible policies towards Muslims. I mean, trying to stop Muslims entering the country, what a horrible thing to do. What an impolite, unwise, illiberal, inhumane thing to do. And so I’m embarrassed if people on the Alt-Right agree with something that I say for the wrong reasons.

There’s not a great deal about religion in 'Science in the Soul'. Most of what I have to say about that is in my earlier book 'The God Delusion', so I can rehearse that if you wish. To me, as a scientist, the main argument is a scientific one. I think that the hypothesis that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence is a scientific hypothesis—it’s a bad hypothesis, it’s a false hypothesis—but it has to be judged on its scientific merits.

The universe would be a very different kind of universe if there was a supernatural creative intelligence in it than if there wasn’t. So much of my argument is a scientific argument. There is no positive reason to believe in anything supernatural. If you look at all the reasons that have been offered, none of them stand up, none of them hold water.

In the form of Darwinian evolution, we have a superb theory of why living things have come into being, why they are the way they are, why they look as though they’ve been designed—and they undoubtedly do look as though they’ve been designed. The illusion of design in living things is immensely powerful and it’s no wonder that until Darwin came along almost everybody believed that it was created by a supernatural intelligence.

But we now have Darwin, we now have Darwin and his successors. We now know how life came about. And the complexity and the beauty, the elegance and the illusion of design of life has always been by far the most powerful argument for the existence of supernatural gods and that is completely blown out of the water.

The secondary argument is whether religion has evil effects, whether religion has bad effects, and on balance I think it does. The real problem is that religious faith prides itself on not needing support. You can’t argue somebody out of their faith, they simply say."


https://youtu.be/n3MmXmAACUM

Richard Dawkins walks on faith, strangely it's as if he has the Mormo LDS hang-on of "knowing" with every fibre of my being line, down pat.

For That Reason, I'm Out "sharktank"

josephssmmyth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

“Richard Dawkins walks on faith”

==What’s his faith?
I thought he is an atheist.

~~~~iceman9090

Here we go again with the bullshit term "Darwinian evolution".

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here we go again with the bullshit term "Darwinian
> evolution".

Dr Dawkins says Darwinian evolution.
IMO, it would be best to set aside Charles Darwin. It is nice to know a little of science history but they sure focus on Charles Darwin a lot when they start talking about biological evolution or biochemical evolution.

~~~~iceman9090

The implication is that Darwin invented evolution.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

I disagree with Dr. Richard Dawkins. It seems as if the muslim culture or religion is breeding violence. They are very angry with jews, USA, England, France and other segments of Europe, Australia. In some sense, they have a right to be upset. How come they created an Israel but no Palestine? How come there is no Kurdistan? Why does Turkey want to label kurds terrorists?
Kurds and palestinians are human beings, right?
How come when turkey invades Armenia, they don’t do anything about it?
When there is genocide in Rwanda and Darfur, they just stand by.

These men of power come together and decide what is in their interest and what is not. They don’t consult me or you. Then, muslims get upset and since they can’t blow up the politicians, they decide to blow up a bus full of people who have nothing to do with these issues.

They even blow up people in majority muslim nations for some reason.

“I think that the hypothesis that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence is a scientific hypothesis—it’s a bad hypothesis, it’s a false hypothesis—but it has to be judged on its scientific merits.”

==Why is it a bad hypothesis? Is it because there will never be evidence in support of it?
If some intelligence creates just some random piece of granite and natural processes create one as well, I can’t tell the difference between them.
Are we heading for Payley’s watchmaker argument?

In essense, arguments about gods making this and that are boring. They can never be inserted into science textbooks. They can’t even be inserted in engineering textbooks. We don’t have their CDs or blue prints or anything and probably never will.

However, I can visit a watchmaker, Casio, Timex, Rolex and other such factories. It is possible to download patent applications. Watches and watchmakers are real. There is evidence for them.

“But we now have Darwin, we now have Darwin ……..”

==Science is superb. Human curiosity drives science. It has progresses a lot in the last 300 y. Religions stagnate. However, religions are interesting to me. I file them under anthropology.

“The secondary argument is whether religion has evil effects……….”

==You mean the Abrahamic flavor of religions? Yes, they are quite violent. They are in the We Are Right business. They are in the WAR business. They also make people feel bad, drive them to depression and suicide.

Thanks for your posts, schrodingerscat. Keep them coming!

~~~~iceman9090

In simplistic terms, they did create Palestine alongside Israel. Jordan and Egypt maintained control of those lands instead. In the 1967 war, Israel forced Jordan and Egypt out and controlled those lands after as well as the Golan Heights (not part of Palestine). But no formalized nation existed. As I understand it, Israel's charter includes language along the lines of these borders plus additional land as necessary to ensure peace. In 1988, they declared the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine under the Palestine Declaration of Independence. Palestine exists as a de jure country (in law, if not fact), largely along the borders orginally specified.

Peace is the wrong word. Security is more like it. Of course, the declaration of the state of Israel doesn't set actual borders...

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In simplistic terms, they did create Palestine
> alongside Israel. Jordan and Egypt maintained
> control of those lands instead. In the 1967 war,
> Israel forced Jordan and Egypt out and controlled
> those lands after as well as the Golan Heights
> (not part of Palestine). But no formalized nation
> existed. As I understand it, Israel's charter
> includes language along the lines of these borders
> plus additional land as necessary to ensure peace.
> In 1988, they declared the West Bank and Gaza as
> Palestine under the Palestine Declaration of
> Independence. Palestine exists as a de jure
> country (in law, if not fact), largely along the
> borders orginally specified.

As you can see, I know little about politics.
I guess you are talking about the 6 day war.
I looked at the wikipedia page.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

I read a few lines and boom, I see
"A United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was deployed along the border, but there was no demilitarisation agreement.[25"

How is it that the UN got involved so quickly? Fo other issues around the world, they don't seem to care.

Somehow, I doubt that there is much desire by the west to recognize a Palestine nation.
If the desire was there, they would have accepted one in a few days.

~~~~iceman9090

iceman9090 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> I disagree with Dr. Richard Dawkins. It seems as
> if the muslim culture or religion is breeding
> violence. They are very angry with jews, USA,
> England, France and other segments of Europe,
> Australia. In some sense, they have a right to be
> upset. How come they created an Israel but no
> Palestine? How come there is no Kurdistan? Why
> does Turkey want to label kurds terrorists?
> Kurds and palestinians are human beings, right?
> How come when turkey invades Armenia, they don’t
> do anything about it?
> When there is genocide in Rwanda and Darfur, they
> just stand by.
>
> These men of power come together and decide what
> is in their interest and what is not. They don’t
> consult me or you. Then, muslims get upset and
> since they can’t blow up the politicians, they
> decide to blow up a bus full of people who have
> nothing to do with these issues.
>
> They even blow up people in majority muslim
> nations for some reason.
>
> “I think that the hypothesis that the universe
> was created by a supernatural intelligence is a
> scientific hypothesis—it’s a bad hypothesis,
> it’s a false hypothesis—but it has to be
> judged on its scientific merits.”
>
> ==Why is it a bad hypothesis? Is it because there
> will never be evidence in support of it?
> If some intelligence creates just some random
> piece of granite and natural processes create one
> as well, I can’t tell the difference between
> them.
> Are we heading for Payley’s watchmaker
> argument?
>
> In essense, arguments about gods making this and
> that are boring. They can never be inserted into
> science textbooks. They can’t even be inserted
> in engineering textbooks. We don’t have their
> CDs or blue prints or anything and probably never
> will.
>
> However, I can visit a watchmaker, Casio, Timex,
> Rolex and other such factories. It is possible to
> download patent applications. Watches and
> watchmakers are real. There is evidence for them.
>
> “But we now have Darwin, we now have Darwin
> ……..”
>
> ==Science is superb. Human curiosity drives
> science. It has progresses a lot in the last 300
> y. Religions stagnate. However, religions are
> interesting to me. I file them under
> anthropology.
>
> “The secondary argument is whether religion has
> evil effects……….”
>
> ==You mean the Abrahamic flavor of religions? Yes,
> they are quite violent. They are in the We Are
> Right business. They are in the WAR business. They
> also make people feel bad, drive them to
> depression and suicide.
>
> Thanks for your posts, schrodingerscat. Keep them
> coming!
>
> ~~~~iceman9090

I can't tell who wrote that, but if it was me, thanks. haha

I don't always agree with Dawkins. Where we disagree is I think he is far to certain when there's no scientific consensus for where life came from in the first place. He acts like there are very good scientific explanations for it, but doesn't mention what those might be. I have some ideas about that that are my own that I think are plausible. But not scientifically proven. I think scientists might discover things in the future, especially about biology. and DNA that are revoltionizing how fast we find vacines for viruses. Mapping the human genome was a major leap forward for gene editing and unleashing the potential for using DNA and RNA to cure diseases. That's awesome. It's also kind of terrifying.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


You wrote the stuff in the quotation marks.
I wrote the lines starting with ==

I am interested in your ideas. You can email me if you want.

When it comes to science, we expect everyone to play by the rule book. Just like there is a rulebook as to how to play golf, baseball, soccer, there is a book for children ages 5 to 6 that explains the rules of science. The purpose of the rules is to act as a filter. The filter blocks bad idea, silly ideas from entering.
This is how science has built a reputation for being reliable. Apparently, some creationist scientists haven't read the children's book of science.

I'll give you a copy, if you want.

~~~~iceman9090

iceman9090 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> You wrote the stuff in the quotation marks.
> I wrote the lines starting with ==
>
> I am interested in your ideas. You can email me if
> you want.
>
> When it comes to science, we expect everyone to
> play by the rule book. Just like there is a
> rulebook as to how to play golf, baseball, soccer,
> there is a book for children ages 5 to 6 that
> explains the rules of science. The purpose of the
> rules is to act as a filter. The filter blocks bad
> idea, silly ideas from entering.
> This is how science has built a reputation for
> being reliable. Apparently, some creationist
> scientists haven't read the children's book of
> science.
>
> I'll give you a copy, if you want.
>
> ~~~~iceman9090

I'd email you but your email is hidden.
I'm not a creationist scientist. I'm about as opposed to creationism and 'intelligent design' (which is just a pseudonym for creationism) as you can get. It's just science denialism at this point, which isn't just delusional, it's dangerous and causing a lot of people to die from their own delusions or the delusions of those who refuse to accept what science is telling us, which is I suppose one form of natural selection.