The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[lithium]

I've heard so much about this book I had to read it for myself. OK, I was an atheist to begin with and remain an atheist, but I think Dawkins' book usefully brings together a number of ideas which are floating about in our culture.

He questions the automatic respect we have for religion - why should it be immune to criticism? He discusses the idea that religion deals with an area into which science cannot delve - but religion makes real claims about the nature of the universe. He talks about the damage religion can do. He also systematically addresses all of the arguments for the existence of gods, something which for many of us will be old ground, but for those who are unsure or who are taken in by the rise of fundamentalism this may well be a helpful guide. I don't think it's going to convert anyone who has been successfully indoctrinated, but for those who may harbour some uncertainties, or who haven't thought their faith through and just accept what they've been brought up with, this will be a consciousness raiser.

It's also a consciousness raiser about issues like bringing children up as believers, Dawkins makes the point that to call a child a "Christian child" or a "Muslim child" and to indoctrinate them with one belief system to the exclusion of all others before they are properly able to think for themselves is a form of mental abuse. What we want are children who have been taught how to think for themselves, not those who are taught to slavishly accept what they are told. Would you call a child a Marxist or a Conservative because that's what its parents are? Would you think it right to bring a child up with strict Marxist views and to teach it that all other ways of thinking are wrong (and not just wrong, but so evil that you will burn in hell for them)?

I understand where the accusations of arrogance continually levelled at Dawkins come from. He is certainly passionate and does not mince his words. But I can't accept that his scientific viewpoint is arrogant, almost by definition. If evidence were to come to light that any of our scientific discoveries were in fact wrong, we would change our ideas in an instant to incorporate the new knowledge. This marks it out as totally the opposite of the breathtaking arrogance of the religious mind, which accepts ideas not just without evidence, but in spite of evidence to the contrary. If the evidence doesn't fit the belief, then it's the evidence which needs to go, not the belief!

I'd recommend this book to believers, doubters or atheists. It's written in a very engaging and often quite informal tone and Dawkins made me guffaw a few times with his devastatingly sarcastic turn of phrase. He writes most convincingly and interestingly when discussing his own area of expertise which is evolutionary biology. It's not really a science book though, it reads more like a lengthy article with plenty of personal anecdotes. Dawkins is one of our most important and interesting thinkers and he writes knowledgably and engagingly, but his arguments and rhetoric can be pretty robust, and not a little sarcastic!

[Peace-Phoenix]

Christians often like to wheel out atheists whol'll denounce Dawkins and his certainty on the non-existence of God, but I'll not be one of them. I often use his flying spaghetti monster argument myself - it brilliantly illustrates the point that the burden of existential proof must be on the proponent, not the opponent....

[lithium]

That's the odd thing - Dawkins does not say that we can be certain there is no god. Like any good scientist, he is open to the possibility of being proved wrong if evidence is forthcoming. (How many believers can say that?)

He makes an interesting point about agnosticism - you either have 50/50 agnosticism where you believe there is an equal likelihood of god existing as not existing and that we can say nothing on either side, or you have some other percentage. Those of us who term ourselves atheists can of course not claim 100% certainty of there being no god, we need to be open to all possibilities, however slim. But we can say that we are about 99% certain and that the likelihood of there being a god is so implausibly small, and the evidence to the contrary so overwhelming, that in practice we are atheists even if technically we are 99/1 agnostics.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (pasta be upon him) is a great example of this. We need to be equally open to the possibility that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster and that He performs miracles with His Noodly Appendage. But we're not 50/50 agnostics on the issue - we're pretty sure that it's so incredibly unlikely that in practice, and in the absence of evidence, we discount the possibility as absurd, even though we cannot technically say that it's absolutely impossible.

The FSM analogy was actually not created by Dawkins, though he uses it often. It's a real (well, satirical) religion, which has inspired its own great art!

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/)

http://www.hipgallery.com/photopost2/data/500/fsm1.jpg

[dapablo]

Tis a book I'd like to bump into myself.

[lithium]

A friend was telling me about this book by a Christian who apparently doubts the existence of Richard Dawkins...
http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/31mk6tp2SdL._AA240_.jpg


It's a genuine book!

[dapablo]

Might be worth a read if it was written in jest, but I wouldn't suppose it was.

[Peace-Phoenix]

A friend was telling me about this book by a Christian who apparently doubts the existence of Richard Dawkins...
http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/31mk6tp2SdL._AA240_.jpg


It's a genuine book!
I've seen it in SPCK down the street. I'd heard it was written by an atheist who thinks Dawkins has gone too far? Could be thinking of a different book with a similar title though....

[lithium]

I've seen it in SPCK down the street. I'd heard it was written by an atheist who thinks Dawkins has gone too far? Could be thinking of a different book with a similar title though....I think that's the one. McGrath is actually an ex-atheist ex-biochemist, now Christian Professor of Theology, he doesn't actually doubt that Dawkins exists, the title of his book just seems to suggest that! I think it's his second book attacking Dawkins' atheism... He calls Dawkins an "atheist fundamentalist"

Apologies in advance for linking to the Daily Mail but McGrath wrote an article for them:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770

[daisy_chain]

Is it the God delusion in which Dawkins mentions emmanuel college? Just I used to go there, and I'm always interested to read his opinions on the subject, I know he attacked it in one of his books. I've not read the God delusion or the Dawkins delusion, but I'd like to. And McGrath did a debate with Peter Atkins, who is a chemistry professor at oxford, and an atheist, at my university last semester, and I really enjoyed it.

[lithium]

Is it the God delusion in which Dawkins mentions emmanuel college? Just I used to go there, and I'm always interested to read his opinions on the subjectYes there's a section on Emmanuel College called "An educational scandal". For anyone who doesn't know that's the "city academy" set up and run by a fundamentalist Christian which teaches Creationism, Intelligent Design and the literal truth of the Bible, just staying within the requirements of the National Curriculum but basically undermining its science content and aiming to indoctrinate its students...

There was a pretty good channel 4 documentary on the place by I think John Sweeney a little while back, too.

[daisy_chain]

Yes there's a section on Emmanuel College called "An educational scandal". For anyone who doesn't know that's the "city academy" set up and run by a fundamentalist Christian which teaches Creationism, Intelligent Design and the literal truth of the Bible, just staying within the requirements of the National Curriculum but basically undermining its science content and aiming to indoctrinate its students...

There was a pretty good channel 4 documentary on the place by I think John Sweeney a little while back, too.
The channel 4 documentary was very biased against the school. I know I'm coming from a biased point as well, because I benefited from the system at emmanuel, but it's not half as bad as the documentary made it out to be. I can't comment on what Dawkins says on the subject, because I've not read what he has to say, but basically the school says from the beginning that it has a Christian ethos, so people know what they're in for before going to the school. Science is taught alongside religion, so I was taught about evolution as well as creation, as they are both theories about how the world came into being.

[Peace-Phoenix]

I don't think religion should have any place in schools except in the context of balanced World Religion lessons that afford equal weight and time to teaching the cultural and historical aspects of all religions and of atheism. The trouble of having an established Church is that it biases Christianity in schools. If people wish to be Christians, that's all well and good, but it should be a free choice. Enforcing worship and Christian teaching in state schools restricts freedoms of choice. France really had the right idea, even if its methods are somewhat suspect....

[daisy_chain]

I don't think religion should have any place in schools except in the context of balanced World Religion lessons that afford equal weight and time to teaching the cultural and historical aspects of all religions and of atheism. The trouble of having an established Church is that it biases Christianity in schools. If people wish to be Christians, that's all well and good, but it should be a free choice. Enforcing worship and Christian teaching in state schools restricts freedoms of choice. France really had the right idea, even if its methods are somewhat suspect....
Emmanuel isn't a state school as far as I know, it receives no funding from the government, as it was set up by Sir Peter Vardy, and the money comes from him. I do understand your point though, because the official religion of England is Anglican, it makes it easier for Christian schools to be set up. There are schools that teach other religions though, although they are mostly, or exclusively attended by people of those religions. I think it would be better if all schools taught every relgion with equal weight, but there will always be teachers with particular religions, and that will put a certain slant on their lessons, I'm talking about relgion teachers specifically really. There are so many religions that most schools focus on the largest, and if all religions were to be taught, none would be covered in particular depth. I don't think the aim of teaching mainly Christianity is to convert all pupils to Christianity, but I can see how people could feel that way. I guess the only real option is to stop all religious education, and I'm not sure that's a good option either. At least if one religion is taught it gives pupils the opportunity to explore what they think. A lot of RE classes did end in heated debate, because we were allowed to disagree, and a lot of people were very vocal, which can't be a bad thing.

[Peace-Phoenix]

I don't think we should stop religious education. Religions are an enormous part of world history and of modern cultures. People should be free to study religions and be given an informed choice as to whether or not a certain religion is right for them. As for state schools, they are required by law to have a daily period of "corporate worship". This is the purpose behind assemblies. Often schools stretch this law, but given that it is so open to interpretation, you may end up with some schools strictly requiring worship in assemblies and others that don't. I know in my primary school we were forced to pray and sing hymns daily. By high school they were much more lax, and only about once every few weeks would they have a Christian assembly. I don't think the point was originally to convert people, but to use schools as a place to offer prayer. Nevertheless, having an established church in a multicultural and agnostic society does lead to those sorts of accusations. Thus other religions begin demanding their own faith schools which, I believe, present serious challenges to cultural integration. As it is poverty leaves many ethnic groups marginalised and schools may represent one of the few means to bridge divides. This is one of the reasons why I don't think schools should be dominated by a particular faith....

[daisy_chain]

I don't think we should stop religious education. Religions are an enormous part of world history and of modern cultures. People should be free to study religions and be given an informed choice as to whether or not a certain religion is right for them. As for state schools, they are required by law to have a daily period of "corporate worship". This is the purpose behind assemblies. Often schools stretch this law, but given that it is so open to interpretation, you may end up with some schools strictly requiring worship in assemblies and others that don't. I know in my primary school we were forced to pray and sing hymns daily. By high school they were much more lax, and only about once every few weeks would they have a Christian assembly. I don't think the point was originally to convert people, but to use schools as a place to offer prayer. Nevertheless, having an established church in a multicultural and agnostic society does lead to those sorts of accusations. Thus other religions begin demanding their own faith schools which, I believe, present serious challenges to cultural integration. As it is poverty leaves many ethnic groups marginalised and schools may represent one of the few means to bridge divides. This is one of the reasons why I don't think schools should be dominated by a particular faith....
We had assemblies in which hymns were sung, but very few students actually sang, and the fact that you didn't sing didn't affect how teachers treated you, it wasn't a necessary thing. I do agree with you though, I think our culture is very prone to turning into many small cultures with not an awful lot to do with each other, and that's not something I want.

[lithium]

Emmanuel isn't a state school as far as I know, it receives no funding from the government, as it was set up by Sir Peter Vardy, and the money comes from him. Actually that's where much of the controversy comes from. Under the city academies scheme, all Vardy needed to do was put up 10% of the school's budget - I think around £2million, and the government put up the other 90% - about 18million. In addition to this the government funds all the school's overheads and salary costs in perpetuity. I might have got the numbers or percentages slightly wrong, working from memory, but that's roughly how it is set up. It is basically a state funded school.

[daisy_chain]

Actually that's where much of the controversy comes from. Under the city academies scheme, all Vardy needed to do was put up 10% of the school's budget - I think around £2million, and the government put up the other 90% - about 18million. In addition to this the government funds all the school's overheads and salary costs in perpetuity. I might have got the numbers or percentages slightly wrong, working from memory, but that's roughly how it is set up. It is basically a state funded school.
Wow, I didn't know that. Does the government fund other faith schools? I mean schools of other faiths, not just Christian ones.

[lithium]

Science is taught alongside religion, so I was taught about evolution as well as creation, as they are both theories about how the world came into being.Was Bibilical creation taught literally alongside science, as a scientific claim or theory?

[Peace-Phoenix]

One of the physics teachers at my state school would teach Big Bang theory as it is supposed to be on the curriculum and then say, but this is what I believe, and talk about Adam and Eve, if can you Adam and Eve it....

[daisy_chain]

One of the physics teachers at my state school would teach Big Bang theory as it is supposed to be on the curriculum and then say, but this is what I believe, and talk about Adam and Eve, if can you Adam and Eve it....
We had a physics teacher like that, and a biology teacher, who would teach evolution, but then say, personally, I don't believe in macroevolution (obviously microevolution was never disputed) and say that he believed in 7 day creation, but not go into great detail in the science lesson, as we covered creationism in RE and assemblies. We did do a poster on creation vs evolution at one point though...

[mbworkrelated]

I like R.Dawkins a true iconaclast.
I've not had the pleasure of reading his latest book - but i do have some time on my hands. So might just spend some time reading it. What the hell i might as well brush up on all of his books.
If anybody knows where i can read or get abridged versions -the would be cool.

Religeon and foreign languages - never saw the point in either of them.

Why not replace them with 'political/economic theory' as i'm always going overdrawn and voting for the wrong political party.

[lithium]

Dawkins quotes liberally from a lecture by Steven Layfield, head of science at Emmanuel. The lecture was removed from the school's website when Dawkins first highlighted it, but you can read it here:
http://www.darwinwars.com/lunatic/liars/layfield.html

Have a look at the section titled "What can be done?"

In it Layfield discusses ways in which the science curriculum can be undermined at every turn and the information the school is required to teach can be always presented to students as disputed or wrong compared to the Bible's infallible account, as well as suggesting the introduction of anti-science and pro-religion reading materials, talks, etc... it makes interesting reading!

It sounds to me like the whole ethos of the school is set up so that it obeys its requirements in teaching what the national curriculum says, but that its teachers are encouraged to go out of their way to undermine and dispute the information our society requires its children to be taught, replacing it, subtly, with one particular religious version.


Note every occasion when an evolutionary/old-earth paradigm (millions or billions of years) is explicitly mentioned or implied by a text-book, examination question or visitor and courteously point out the fallibility of the statement. Wherever possible, we must give the alternative (always better) Biblical explanation of the same data.

[daisy_chain]

It sounds to me like the whole ethos of the school is set up so that it obeys its requirements in teaching what the national curriculum says, but that its teachers are encouraged to go out of their way to undermine and dispute the information our society requires its children to be taught, replacing it, subtly, with one particular religious version.

[/color][/size][/font]
That is the way it looks, but Mr. Layfield was one of very few teachers who actively disagreed with what he was teaching in such an obvious way. I'm not saying the school is perfect, but at least it makes no attempt to cover the fact that it is pro-religion. The school definitely taught curriculum material, otherwise exam results wouldn't have been obviously good, and we were taught that some scientific theories were theories, rather than facts, as evolutionists would prefer. The Emmanuel Schools Foundation was set up in order to put decent schools in inner-city areas, where previously there had been schools that weren't so good, and it succeeded, at least so far. I agree that religion shouldn't have such a big emphasis in schools, but Vardy clearly believes it's right for the school to be like that, and he's technically in charge.

[daisy_chain]

Religeon and foreign languages - never saw the point in either of them.

Why not replace them with 'political/economic theory' as i'm always going overdrawn and voting for the wrong political party.
Totally disagree with that, foreign languages are so important

[mbworkrelated]

Totally disagree with that, foreign languages are so important

Why ?

[lithium]

The school definitely taught curriculum material, otherwise exam results wouldn't have been obviously good, and we were taught that some scientific theories were theories, rather than facts, as evolutionists would prefer.At the risk of going a little off topic, this theory / fact dichotomy is something which comes up a lot and is based on a misunderstanding. In science the use of the word "theory" is a specific and technical usage which distinguishes it from a hypothesis or a "guess". A scientific theory is a consistent and logical system of knowledge which is based on empirical observable evidence. It's not the opposite of a "fact", it's about as close to being a fact as it is possible to get given current knowledge. Evolution is a theory in the same way gravity is a theory: it is a system of knowledge which explains observed phenomena. I think "theory" is often used in this context to mean something like what we understand by the word "hypothesis". A scientific theory is a hypothesis which has been confirmed by experimental data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science

[paulfreespirit]

sorry for going off topic in this den of equinity :D but would like to ask mathew what a foreign language is ?

[daisy_chain]

Why ?
What would the world become if no-one bothered with any language but their own? If we all just assumed that people would learn our language, we'd fail miserably at interacting with the world. Then the diversity it's possible to experience would be completely lost.

[daisy_chain]

At the risk of going a little off topic, this theory / fact dichotomy is something which comes up a lot and is based on a misunderstanding. In science the use of the word "theory" is a specific and technical usage which distinguishes it from a hypothesis or a "guess". A scientific theory is a consistent and logical system of knowledge which is based on empirical observable evidence. It's not the opposite of a "fact", it's about as close to being a fact as it is possible to get given current knowledge. Evolution is a theory in the same way gravity is a theory: it is a system of knowledge which explains observed phenomena. I think "theory" is often used in this context to mean something like what we understand by the word "hypothesis". A scientific theory is a hypothesis which has been confirmed by experimental data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
Well belief then, I think that just because evolution is the best guess we have so far, it shouldn't be accepted as solid fact. I chose my words wrongly.

[mbworkrelated]

sorry for going off topic in this den of equinity :D but would like to ask mathew what a foreign language is ?

Anything that is not English -
If i was Swedish : anything that is not Swedish etc etc.

Did you expect some ranting rascism or something ?.

I just say both these subjects should be abandoned because from what i have read of science / economics / political science - they are far more relevant to us all. I'd have much prefered learning about these at a younger age - even if i was not going to persue them in college/university.

It might just prevent apathy / greater participation in voting and a greater appreciation of our society.

You can do languages and religeon on a Open University course for all i care -

[daisy_chain]

I think economics and political science should be given greater importance, but religion and languages are still important aspects of the world, and so should still be studied

[lithium]

sorry for going off topic in this den of equinity :D A den of equinity hey?
http://www.solarnavigator.net/sport/sport_images/Equestrian_Sport_Show_Jumping_Baltic_Cup_Shannon_M ejnert_Sandy_horse.jpg
:tongue:

[mbworkrelated]

What would the world become if no-one bothered with any language but their own? If we all just assumed that people would learn our language, we'd fail miserably at interacting with the world. Then the diversity it's possible to experience would be completely lost.

I'm not suggesting nobody learns a foreign language or looks into religeons - just not at school.

It would be great if we all spoke ONE language or we all learnt each other languages [not just french / german] . That is not going to happen is it -especially in the space of our schooling.

[paulfreespirit]

nicompoop

[mbworkrelated]

nicompoop

Is that Portuguese ?.

[paulfreespirit]

A den of equinity hey?
http://www.solarnavigator.net/sport/sport_images/Equestrian_Sport_Show_Jumping_Baltic_Cup_Shannon_M ejnert_Sandy_horse.jpg
:tongue: yeah man got it off ideal last night :D

[paulfreespirit]

Is that Portuguese ?. why dont yer learn and find out .

[daisy_chain]

ok, fair enough, but I think if languages were dropped from the curriculum very few people would bother with them. speaking one language would be great, but less interesting.

[paulfreespirit]

i leave you in peace now back to dawkins :)

[mbworkrelated]

yeah man got it off ideal last night :D :) hahahahaha i think i saw that as well.
I think we are perfect e.gs that there was not inteligent design.

cheap (http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/1846570379)

[mbworkrelated]

i leave you in peace now back to dawkins :)
Ditto

[daisy_chain]

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. The world is so beautiful, and so many things are so perfect that I can't help but believe there is a designer.

[lithium]

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. The world is so beautiful, and so many things are so perfect that I can't help but believe there is a designer.http://richarddawkins.net/video/growingUpClip2all.mov

[paulfreespirit]

:) hahahahaha i think i saw that as well.
I think we are perfect e.gs that there was not inteligent design.

cheap (http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/1846570379) listen fuckface speak for yourself .......again i leave you in peace .............ditto? yer bollocks ........ whats the matter mathew man is the word peace foreign to you or what ? ..........sorry ............back to dawkins ..............peace

[daisy_chain]

Ok, I wouldn't go as far as to say everything on earth is purely there to look pretty for us. And I'm vegetarian, so clearly I don't think the only purpose of animals is for us to eat them. But I do think that the world has the mark of a designer. I had a very good example, but I've forgotten it, which sucks a bit. I'll post when I remember

[lithium]

I'm not suggesting nobody learns a foreign language or looks into religeons - just not at school.I don't think we should drop religions from the curriculum. Our civilisation, language, art and culture is so steeped in religious and biblical thinking that it would be a great loss to fail to include these great ideas in our teaching. It would render a vast proportion of our history, literature and art unintelligible!

What I do object to is the teaching of religion as science. Religion is inherently unscientific, and to suggest religion and science have equal claim to truth is to give children a fundamental misunderstanding of the way we go about gaining knowledge, to disable their minds from proper critical thinking. To muddy the waters of the scientific method with the confusing implication that the Bible is in some way an accurate, literal historical account of the creation of the universe is deeply irresponsible and damaging to young minds. Teaching the bible as literal truth not only undermines the study of science, it undermines the study of history and literature, and it has one intention - to indoctrinate impressionable young minds with falsehoods and to keep this pernicious mind virus alive.

We should study our religious cultural heritage, and the various different religious cultures of the world, but these should be kept totally separate from science.

[lithium]

Ok, I wouldn't go as far as to say everything on earth is purely there to look pretty for us. And I'm vegetarian, so clearly I don't think the only purpose of animals is for us to eat them. But I do think that the world has the mark of a designer. I had a very good example, but I've forgotten it, which sucks a bit. I'll post when I rememberI would recommend you read the Dawkins book, he deals extensively with the teleological argument (argument from design) and shows how it has been demonstrated to be false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

[daisy_chain]

I would recommend you read the Dawkins book, he deals extensively with the teleological argument (argument from design) and shows how it has been demonstrated to be false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
I've wanted to read some Dawkins for a while, it was suggested reading for one of my courses this year, but I couldn't afford them, and they were never in the library when I went. Have you read any of his other work? I'd like to read the Dawkins delusion as well, just because I'd like to see how McGrath responds to Dawkins.

[lithium]

I haven't read any of his other books, but have been a reader of his articles for some time. I would like to read The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype because they are such seminal scientific works. As I said in my review I think he writes best when he's discussing his own field of expertise which is evolutionary biology. The God Delusion is well worth reading and I think a lot of what Dawkins says in it on the place of religion in society needed to be said, but much of what he says is based on inferences we can draw from a close look at the science itself without the need to bring religion in at all: it just doesn't explain anything and is therefore quite redundant. The awe inspiring wonder of the details of evolutionary theory speak for themselves; once you read and understand Darwin's Origin of Species, its beautiful simplicity and explanatory force more than makes up for anything you lose in ridding yourself of religious ideas. Origin of Species was the book that truly opened my eyes to the wonder of existence!:)

[daisy_chain]

I didn't even make it all of the way through origin of species, and last semester one of my courses was origins and diversity of life, oops. I'm not great at reading non-fiction, I've always read fiction, and loved it, so never saw the need to read anything else. I think I'm missing out though. I'd like to read the selfish gene, and maybe the blind watchmaker. I don't think there's a chance of me ridding myself of religious ideas, but evolution really interests me, I don't think that 7 day creation necessarily means 7 24hour periods, so I think evolution and creation can sit alongside each other. It's something I don't know enough about I think. There are also plenty of Christians who would say evolution is right, but that doesn't mean it wasn't caused by God. I think evolution is an awesome concept, and Darwin is one of the greatest thinkers to ever have lived. So yeah, maybe getting all of the way through origin of species would be a start, then selfish gene and God delusion.

[lithium]

I don't think there's a chance of me ridding myself of religious ideas, but evolution really interests me, I don't think that 7 day creation necessarily means 7 24hour periods, so I think evolution and creation can sit alongside each other. It's something I don't know enough about I think. There are also plenty of Christians who would say evolution is right, but that doesn't mean it wasn't caused by God. I think evolution is an awesome concept, and Darwin is one of the greatest thinkers to ever have lived. So yeah, maybe getting all of the way through origin of species would be a start, then selfish gene and God delusion.Yes, I think it's worthwhile to remind ourselves that a majority of Christians do not believe that the world is 6,000 years old and that it was created in seven days by a floating bearded sky-magician. It's a minority in the West who believe in the literal infallible truth of the Bible (except in the USA where I think it's at least 50/50...). Are you aware of Stephen Jay Gould's theory of "Non-overlapping magesteria"? Dawkins does take issue with Gould's seperation of religion and science by stating (quite convincingly I think) that almost by definition religion makes 'scientific' claims about the fundamental nature of existence, claims which can be tested. But nonetheless, Gould's attempt is to reconcile science with religion not by denying science as creationists do but by stating that religion deals with matters of ultimate meaning and morality, questions about which science is neutral. This is at least an attempt to deal with the empirical evidence and to accept the overwhelming likelihood of evolution and big bang theory etc.

It's the fundamentalist minority who believe in the absolute literal truth of the Bible and claim that all scientific knowledge is wrong, and that God planted fossils to fool us, who are the really scary loony ones...

[daisy_chain]

Yep, the headmaster of my primary school was convinced dinosaurs had never existed, and the fossils were just there for confusion. That confused me more than dinosaurs ever would. Gould's theory sounds interesting, I'll have to take a look at that.

[mbworkrelated]

listen fuckface speak for yourself .......again i leave you in peace .............ditto? yer bollocks ........ whats the matter mathew man is the word peace foreign to you or what ? ..........sorry ............back to dawkins ..............peace

I don't think i'll give up the day job :jester: - i was only kidding Paul - Taketh a chill pill - man .

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. The world is so beautiful, and so many things are so perfect that I can't help but believe there is a designer.

I do not doubt the wonder of the cosmos as a whole.
The glory / beauty of each and every atom on this planet is breathtaking - but it is a mere evolutionary process that happened to turn out 'ok' - it has gone horrible wrong [in comparison] hundreds if not thousands screw it - billions of times - all over the cosmos.

NOTHING is perfect but i have to say it is a 'miracle' that it all fits together and works - especialy the animal kingdom the planets and moons spinning around and around and the galaxy spinning around around erm yeah spinning around and around erm black holes i'd imagine.

http://www.tgaw.com/images/SpeakEasy/haeckel.jpg


And I'm vegetarian, so clearly I don't think the only purpose of animals is for us to eat them.
I'm a vegeterian - BUT
Don't animals eat animals [on the whole] ?. The whole food chain thingy me bob.
I know people will say ''we do not need to eat meat'' - ''were not 'designed' to eat meat'' and all that baloney - but come on - animals eat animals - always have always will.

[daisy_chain]

NOTHING is perfect but i have to say it is a 'miracle' that it all fits together and works - especialy the animal kingdom the planets and moons spinning around and around and the galaxy spinning around around erm yeah spinning around and around erm black holes i'd imagine.

I'm a vegeterian - BUT
Don't animals eat animals [on the whole] ?. The whole food chain thingy me bob.
I know people will say ''we do not need to eat meat'' - ''were not 'designed' to eat meat'' and all that baloney - but come on - animals eat animals - always have always will.
I'd agree that it's a miracle. Do you mean it's all gone horribly wrong in that we're the only planet, as far as we know, on which life has managed to happen? What I meant was I don't think animals were put on the planet just for us to eat. I know animals eat animals, and that's perfectly natural. I would also say that humans eating meat is pretty natural. But it's not the only reason animals exist.

[mbworkrelated]

I'd agree that it's a miracle.
At last - we agree on something :)
Do you mean it's all gone horribly wrong in that we're the only planet, as far as we know, on which life has managed to happen?
Yes - the diversity of THIS planet is breathtaking - just far away from a sun to keep us warm - just far enough away so are arses do not fry.
The fluke of a moon to keep us in equilibrium - the list goes on and on.
What I meant was I don't think animals were put on the planet just for us to eat.
Oh no - to be honest us humans are on this planet waaaaay to long . I'd much prefer to have lived a short life and passed on my DNA to a wide variety of females [if you know what i mean].
I know animals eat animals, and that's perfectly natural. I would also say that humans eating meat is pretty natural. But it's not the only reason animals exist.
Sorry - yeah i agree with you.
I do wonder why snakes are on this planet - nasty evil things - buy yeah each animal has a place and a 'purpose' or no purpose at all [just like us] i'd imagine. I do not think we are particularly special - or above any other species on this lovely planet we all inhabit.

[lithium]

"Miracle" is the wrong word, for fairly obvious reasons! What we can say is that it is staggeringly improbable that life would occur out of the chemistry of any particular planet. But when you have (at a conservative estimate) a billion billion planets in the universe, even an event as improbable as one in a billion will result in a billion instances of that event being probable throughout the universe. And you only need it to happen once in order to explain our existence. The origin of life in the universe is therefore an exceptionally likely outcome!

All you need is one instance of this rare chemical event resulting in molecule replication with heredity, and the whole process of evolution begins from there.

As for the unlikely nature of the universe being "just so" so that planets can form and chemical elements exist etc, the anthropic principle tells us that by definition the universe must be this way because of the fact we are here observing it, and we must be on a planet like Earth which is conducive to the proliferation of life, because we are alive here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[daisy_chain]

As for the unlikely nature of the universe being "just so" so that planets can form and chemical elements exist etc, the anthropic principle tells us that by definition the universe must be this way because of the fact we are here observing it, and we must be on a planet like Earth which is conducive to the proliferation of life, because we are alive here...
So it must be possible for life to occur in the universe, because it has. That's immense. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, it's so hard to tell on these things.

[lithium]

So it must be possible for life to occur in the universe, because it has. That's immense. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, it's so hard to tell on these things.Self-evidently! Here's a quote from one of its proponents on that wiki page which explains it:

The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time. This principle was used very effectively by Brandon Carter and Robert Dicke to resolve an issue that had puzzled physicists for a good many years. The issue concerned various striking numerical relations that are observed to hold between the physical constants (the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, the age of the universe, etc.). A puzzling aspect of this was that some of the relations hold only at the present epoch in the earth's history, so we appear, coincidentally, to be living at a very special time (give or take a few million years!). This was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called main-sequence stars, such as the sun. At any other epoch, so the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around in order to measure the physical constants in question-so the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be intelligent life around only at the particular time that the coincidence did hold!
- Roger Penrose

"we must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers." - Brandon Carter

It doesn't explain how life came about, just that if the nature of the universe were not such that it could support life, there would be no life, by definition. Devastatingly simple. The origin of life is still not explained other than probabilistically, though biochemistry / abiogenesis is such a fruitful area for research that it's reasonable to assume it will be discovered soon. Once we have recreated the genesis of life from simple molecules in the laboratory, we will understand the key to the existence of life itself:stunned:

[daisy_chain]

Ah wikipedia, how I love thee. It's quite scary how close we seem to be to working all of everything out. How probable is recreating the beginning of life? I know people are trying, I'm just not sure how close they are

[lithium]

How probable is recreating the beginning of life? I know people are trying, I'm just not sure how close they areThat is of course impossible to say, it's one of the big questions for which we don't yet have an answer. One thing that's striking is that when you try to look up scientific information about current research on abiogenesis or biopoesis, you find an astonishing number of references to god. It seems like wherever there is an area of current research where we don't yet have satisfactory answers, that's where god gets pushed back to as an explanation. Until we work out a falsifiable theory, at which point god gets pushed back even further into the next gap in knowledge. Dawkins refers to this as "gap theology"...

[daisy_chain]

Like God will do, until we can come up with something else. That frustrates me. I should read more about this, but I think exams in the next week are probably more important. After that I can spend a large chunk of time sorting my opinions on the subject, and finding out what's going on. I think, as far as I know, most scientists are loath to say anything on the subject until they've gotten somewhere. Until there's something definite and publishable, they don't want a massive hype about it, or people will assume it already happened.

[Quoth the Raven]

ok, fair enough, but I think if languages were dropped from the curriculum very few people would bother with them. speaking one language would be great, but less interesting.
Totally agree - language isn't just about being able to order beer and steak in Spain. The essence of a culture is found in its language - when you learn that language and are able to THINK in it (not just parrot phrases) you can see the world from a different perspective - either one close(ish) to our own, e.g German, French, etc. or one completely different - Chinese, Japanese, Tamil, Hindi etc.
"Religious education" should be scrapped in the form it is today. Teachers should be specifically forbidden from allowing a personal bias to intrude - equal weighting needs to be given to the 6 major world religions, with I'd say at least a third of classroom time given over to the less common ones (Shamanism, neo-paganism, Shinto, Baha'i, Jainism etc). Also atheism needs to be presented as a valid perspective, just not as a lack of belief.
On the other hand, kids definitely need to learn more about politics - not just Labour/conservative/Lib Dems, but the essence of politics - making the voice of the people heard, standing up for your rights and freedoms. if they'd done that in the 80s and 90s, Blair and Thatcher would never have been allowed to take root.

[verseau_miracle]

I dont get atheism:( It makes me feel really uninetellectual. But i just cant understand it

[lithium]

I dont get atheism:( It makes me feel really uninetellectual. But i just cant understand itIn the book Dawkins makes the point that every member of a religion knows exactly what it's like to be an atheist - about the gods of the other religions. We are all atheists about the old gods of the Romans and Greeks like Thor, Zeus, Apollo etc. Personally I can't fathom theism. To be convinced that your life is secretly influenced by gods and spirits which you have no valid reason to believe exist. I have no idea what that would be like...

"Every religion gets one thing right - that all the others are wrong."
- Richard Herring

[Dudhos Cowski]

players in reality, to answer a previous post.

[verseau_miracle]

Personally I can't fathom theism. To be convinced that your life is secretly influenced by gods and spirits which you have no valid reason to believe exist. I have no idea what that would be like...

"Every religion gets one thing right - that all the others are wrong."
- Richard Herring For me its not about influence...theres nothing pushing us in one direction or the other, nothing up there looking down lovingly and nurturing or a God causing famine or anything like that, and most CERTAINLY not punishing. So no, its not a guide or an influence and doesnt cancel out free will at all. It saddens me to see people AT WAR because of GOD. Thats insane. And a belief in God shouldnt be tangled up with religion, not for me anyway....

For me, its a being...a presence...just something that IS, in every living thing. I see it everywhere. The patterns of the world...everything in circles and cycles...i see something simple like a leaf or a mouse and its a little miracle, it has...soul. That being. It couldnt be created by man without other organic matter. Its us, its the other animals, and its how we can be so beautiful as to love. And i just cant deny that presence, because for me, its THERE

Religions a totally different thing. Im not religious in a gang of people get together and read from books and "praise" or slag off other peoples Gods kind of way. Its subtle, so hard to explain

I respect atheism, i see the arguments...i just cant FEEL it

[lithium]

For me its not about influence...theres nothing pushing us in one direction or the other, nothing up there looking down lovingly and nurturing or a God causing famine or anything like that, and most CERTAINLY not punishing. So no, its not a guide or an influence and doesnt cancel out free will at all. It saddens me to see people AT WAR because of GOD. Thats insane. And a belief in God shouldnt be tangled up with religion, not for me anyway....

For me, its a being...a presence...just something that IS, in every living thing. I see it everywhere. The patterns of the world...everything in circles and cycles...i see something simple like a leaf or a mouse and its a little miracle, it has...soul. That being. It couldnt be created by man without other organic matter. Its us, its the other animals, and its how we can be so beautiful as to love. And i just cant deny that presence, because for me, its THERE

Religions a totally different thing. Im not religious in a gang of people get together and read from books and "praise" or slag off other peoples Gods kind of way. Its subtle, so hard to explain

I respect atheism, i see the arguments...i just cant FEEL itNothing in what you say is contrary to an atheistic take on the universe. By the way you struggled to use the word "soul" I think you are using it metaphorically rather than in its stictly supernatural sense. It's possible to be moved with a profound sense of wonder at the deep mysteries of the universe and to be stirred with an awareness of the incredible beauty of life and still be an atheist - I'd say that's what atheism gives you rather than being something it takes away.

People make the mistake of thinking that atheism is cold and 'soulless' and is about rejecting beauty and mystery and awe and wonder. It's really nothing of the sort. An understanding of the physical principles that create our universe and us and an awareness of the mysteries of the universe about which we still know very little can and should drive anyone who considers them for a moment to an incredible realisation about something of the nature of life, the universe and our place in it. Consider the incredible complexity of the double helix of DNA which exists in the cells of every living thing and whose combinations can create an infinite variety of creatures and experience and consciousness itself! An understanding of DNA and genetic heredity is amazing and awe-inspiring: far more so than any talk of "soul".

Atheism opens up a much more profound sense of awe and wonder at the true beauty of existence than superstitions ever can:) It sounds like you are an atheist but just don't know it yet.

[lithium]

Dawkins reads his new preface to the paperback edition of the book, appropriately enough on a boat in the Galapagos Islands where Darwin's studies led him to his discovery of the origin of species by natural selection:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGmALkvcG2M

Interesting discussion afterwards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOzziDh-0_Y