Richard Dawkins' Letter To His 10 Year-old Daughter(very interesting)

ah ... then we'll strive for literal patience . i've been hoping the
pup i've been raising would learn to talk . just the past few days
she began making a couple new sounds - age 8mths . hmmm ,
spose i'll have that similar sort of patience with the next post .

 

Perfectly worded. Tried to rep, but I already repped you today. lol

 

While I do admit that Dawkins has a lot of good points, he seems to miss one thing: a heart.
He is such a typical British empiricist that he forgets about very important things; human feelings and irrational pleasures. He seems to be the kind of guy who punishes and laughs at his 10-year old daughter for believing in Santa Claus, because it is irrational and unscientific.

 

I can't...
get...
through it,
too boring...
need...
...
Pornolize!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvIltYRw0tA"]Dawkins Letter Enhanced Mature Version - YouTube

Ahhh!

 

I read it, letter seems heavy for being directed at a 10 year old but good information.

 

Obviously he favoured the idea of sharing with his daughter (on a more 'personal' level) his professional journeys. I'm sure she will cherish his letters, and may even pass them on to her children; a family heirloom, if you will.

 

I couldn't disagree more. The Bible contains lots of wisdom ("the good parts") as well as much folly, as you've pointed out. Why should I have to accept them both uncritically?

The Bible is an effort by people to try to get their heads around the great mystery called reality. It was written over centuries, and to understand the meaning we need to consider the historical context that led to the passage in question. Neither the Jews nor the Christians in the first few centuries after Christ, understood it literally. Philo, a Jewish philosopher of Jesus' time, and Origen, one of the earliest Christian theologians, provided instructions on the allegorical or metaphorical understanding of Scripture. Biblical literalism is largely American gothic--an infantile condition of the Southern United States.

You cite a passage from Matthew, a gospel written by an anonymous person decades after the death of Jesus. He read Mark and another source (Q) also used by Luke. Where he got the additional material is unknown. For example, only in Matthew do we learn that after the crucifixion corpses rose from their dead and went to town to visit the living. That's a rather dramatic development, and one might have thought someone else at the time would have recorded it--e.g., the writers of the other gospels. Which is why I regard it as hyperbole. Each of the gospel writers has his own take on Jesus. Matthew presents Jesus as a second Moses, and tailors his narrative accordingly. He is writing to the Jews, and trying to convince them that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. His quotation from Jesus is probably accurate. Jesus was concerned with upholding and fulfilling the Torah, although He had a different, more human understanding of it than the Pharisees, who added their own elaborate "unwritten Torah".

What I get from Matthew is the Sermon on the Mount and other moving passages concerning our duties to all of our fellow humans. I don't exactly regard the Bible as a cafeteria in which we can pick and choose our messages according to our preferences. I view it as an important source of information about God and Jesus, to be interpreted sometimes metaphorically, considered in historical context, and evaluated in the light of reason, reflection, scholarship, and other sources.

Regarding your statement about Christians being bound by the Old Testament, most of us believe we are under a new covenant. The Old Testament rested on a covenant between God and the Jews. Gentiles aren't bound by it, and never have been. Jewish rabbis recognize that. And as for the passage in Matthew about the Law remaining intact, many believe that the "until everything is accomplished" part was fulfilled when Jesus was crucified. Otherwise, it would be very hard to reconcile Matthew and Paul.

 

Good point. If we took politicians at their word, we might think Newt Gingrich is primarily motivated by religion!

 

Because the bible is the very foundation of the christian faith. It is where christians get their "morality" and guidelines.

It's just too bad the bible doesn't include a disclamer that mentions the fact that the Jesus story was stolen from religions that existed hundreds, and even thousands, of years before Jesus supposedly lived. lol I guess that would defeat the purpose though.

 

You have completely misunderstood the meaning of what Jesus said.
His incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, return, etc, etc,etc, is ALL part of the entire "law and prophecy, jot and tittle" that he was referring too, not just the O.T.

Actually the mention of fulfilling and completing the law DOES refer to his fulfilling the law and the prophets, therefore bringing that chapter of God's relationship with man to a close as typified by the veil of the temple being torn in half symbolically removing the barrier between God and Man and ushering in the age of the "New Covenant", but that doesn't mean it is "all finished".


You see TNS, it is exactly the type of miscomprehension of the Bible, same as Dawkins exhibits, that makes the camp of people such as Dawkins appear like an utter ass to someone who does have an understanding of it, in both word and intention.
Yes, I think Dawkins is an ass.

I did get a chuckle out of his mentioning "Holy Rollers" as if it were some type of denomination LOL, to me that just exemplifies his ignorance of the topic rather than his knowledge of it.


Plus he still can't answer about phenomena such as prophetic information, healings, glossolalia, and other manifestations of the Spirit mentioned in the New Testament, most of which I have personally experienced or witnessed.

You guys know I stick with scientific evidence and logic like fucking glue if your at all familiar with my posts and I am certainly no saint,
But I still can't just disregard the many experiences that I have personally have had that fly in the face of the reason and logic of our current understanding, but wholly and completely vindicate the teachings/accounts of the New Testament, and I wrestle a bit every day with it.

Anyone got any thoughts on that, and yes, I am completely sane and rational.



p.s I'm not saying your an ass TNS, just making erroneous conclusions about the religion.

 

Again, not understanding the things at work here.

1) part of the point/object lesson of the whole old testament law was to exemplify the huge gulf between what God would consider "righteousness" and humanities inability to attain to that level.
That is one aspect that never is considered, God never intended nor expected man to be capable of fulfilling the law. It is all there in the book.

2) with the advent of the New Covenant via Jesus, the OT law was "fulfilled" and a new deal was born, the age of grace as opposed to the age of law.
So for anyone to think that Christians need to/should adhere to the law of the old testament just plain and simply DOESN'T GET IT!


Don't want to sound like I'm trying to proselytize on HF, but I really get tired of reading these anti-Christian/anti-religion posts and opinions that are born of an utter lack of information or comprehension concerning the subject matter rather than an abundance of it.

 

The notion that "the Bible" is the only source of Christian faith is fundamentalist, not universally shared among Christians. Some of us also use reason and take an historical-metaphorical approach to Scripture. Catholics, for example, believe that the Church is 'the very foundation of the Christian faith", and the official interpreter of what the Bible means. Progressive Christians like myself consider the Bible to be one source of material getting our "morality and guidelines", and a source to be viewed historically and critically, in light of reason and scholarship. Atheists like fundamentalists, because they are so easy to prove wrong. As I said, the Torah has never been binding on Gentiles, and there was no "New Testament" for the first three centuries of Christianity. As for the "stolen" Jesus story, that atheist myth has been pretty much busted by the weight of current scholarship (See Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?). That there was some mutual borrowing going on is undeniable, but pagans seem to have done at least as much of that as Christians.

 

It's not that long and I agree with one of the three points. Tradition is an awful reason for believing things, and it is invoked by Christian churches--even the Methodists and Episcopalians. On the matter of authority, I'd have to disagree--and Dawkins ends up backing away from his initial position on the subject. Most of what we believe is based on authority. I take the word of authorities that we did land on the moon and the landing wasn't done on the back lot of universal studios. Likewise, I take the word of scientist that we evolved from other species, that the universe began from a Big Bang, and that humans had domesticated the dog before Genesis says the earth was created. Note that in accepting these authorities, I'm rejecting others: Young and Old Earth Creationists and the Flat Earth Society. A large part of our task in figuring out reality is in deciding which "experts" to believe. Like Dawkins, I put my money on scientists, but I'm also open to persuasion by credible philosophers, theologians, and bible scholars. Of course, the ultimate test is whether or not the "authority" is supported by published peer reviewed research or observations by trained professionals. If somebody like the Pope is claiming infallibility on the basis of apostolic succession, I'd find that a dubious basis for authority.

Dawkins can pass on lots of sage advice to his daughter, but the scientific method he extolls can never give her meaning in life. That will have to come from other sources--possibly secular. But some of us find it in religion. Science may never get around to addressing questions that are important to us personally, and many of those just aren't amenable to rigorous testing. Good scientist that he is, Dawkins is primarily concerned with avoiding Type 1 errors--accepting beliefs that are false; but empiricism carries the risk of Type 2 errors--rejecting beliefs that are true because they don't meet the rigorous criteria of science. Who is to say that the anecdotal evidence of numerous people over the centuries concerning their religious experiences should be dismissed just because they elude Dawkins' tests. Which is why I think it would be okay for his daughter to use her own judgment in deciding what life is all about.

 

I read it man!

I think he makes a few good points. I simply believe it is important to question everything!

Interesting stuff, thanks for sharing :sunny:

 

Yes it is an interesting letter..... Its important to let others beloeve what they want to AND NOT TRY TO FORCE RELIGON,ETC.......