Darwin’s Rottweiler

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Contessa_Sharra, Oct 3, 2009.

  1. Contessa_Sharra
    Offline

    Contessa_Sharra Searcher for Accuracy

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Thanks Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +147
    Darwin’s Rottweiler

    Richard Dawkins on his tense relations with those who believe in God.

    By Lisa Miller | NEWSWEEK

    Published Sep 26, 2009

    In his controversial bestseller [ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001I1123O/?tag=nwswk-20"]The God Delusion[/ame], evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins attacked religious belief. He spoke with me about his new work, [ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1416594787/?tag=nwswk-20"]The Greatest Show on Earth[/ame], and his inimitable style. Excerpts:

    Why were you motivated to write this book?
    Well, it's about the evidence for evolution. Evolution is one of the most fascinating ideas in all of science. It explains your existence and mine, and the existence of just about everything we see. How can you possibly ask what motivated me? It's just a wonderful subject to write a book about.

    Is this supposed to be the definitive refutation of creationist arguments?
    Well, it's amazing that there needs to be a definitive refutation of them, but yes, if you put it like that, it is a propitious time from that point of view. Any time would have been a good time for this book.

    Are those incompatible positions: to believe in God and to believe in evolution?
    No, I don't think they're incompatible if only because there are many intelligent evolutionary scientists who also believe in God—to name only Francis Collins [the geneticist and Christian believer recently chosen to head the National Institutes of Health] as an outstanding example. So it clearly is possible to be both. This book more or less begins by accepting that there is that compatibility. The God Delusion did make a case against that compatibility in my own mind.

    I wonder whether you might be more successful in your arguments if you didn't convey irritation and a sense that the people who believe in God are not as smart as you are.
    I think there is a certain justified irritation with young-earth creationists who believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old. Those are the people that I'm really talking about. I do sometimes accuse people of ignorance, but that is not intended to be an insult. I'm ignorant of lots of things. Ignorance is something that can be remedied by education. And that's what I'm trying to do.

    Is there anything else I've missed?
    I would be glad if you didn't use the word "strident." I'm getting a little bit tired of it.

    I've read your books and I would not disagree with that characterization.
    OK. Well, let me plant one idea in your head. When somebody offers an opinion about anything other than religion—say, politics or economics or football—they will use language that is no more or less outspoken than mine, and it isn't called strident. As soon as it's an atheistic opinion, immediately the adjective "strident" is attached to it, almost as though the word atheist can't be used without the preceding adjective "strident." You wouldn't talk about a strident Christian.

    Oh, yes, you absolutely would. I wouldn't call all of the new atheists strident. Christopher Hitchens, for example, isn't strident.
    Is he not?

    I would just say that it's a different approach.
    I suppose the most strident passage in The God Delusion is where I talk about how the God of the Old Testament is the most unpleasant character in all fiction. I had this long list of adjectives: homophobic, infanticidal. That's kind of using long words, long Latinate words to describe what everybody actually knows: that the God of the Old Testament is a monster. I put it in this rather, I'd like to think, amusing way.

    Ninety percent of Americans say they believe in God. To make fun of them is to alienate them.
    Well in that particular passage I'm only talking about the God of the Old Testament, so the only people who will be offended are the people who believe in the God of the Old Testament—which by the way is most of the people you're referring to. So that has to be conceded. But I also suspect that if they actually read the Old Testament, they could not fail to agree with what I said. The God of the Old Testament is a monster. It's very, very hard for anybody to deny that. He's like a hyped-up Ayatollah Khomeini.

    But if some portion of that 90 percent are intelligent people—
    But they wouldn't disagree with what I said about the God of the Old Testament. They'd probably say something like, "Oh, that's quite different. We believe in the God of the New Testament." Something like that.

    Not if they're Jewish they wouldn't.
    Well, sure enough. They'd say, "OK, we've moved on since that time." Thank goodness they have.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
  2. froggy
    Offline

    froggy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,309
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,632
    can anyone prove god didn't use this earth before many times over and this time started about 10,000 years ago?
     
  3. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,684
    Religion haters can't show how or when the earth was formed. They show effect but never any cause.

    They can never get to the Prime Motivator and they never will.
     
  4. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    Actually, scientists can show how Terra was formed, they just can't show why it all exists and what put it all in motion.
     
  5. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    137,399
    Thanks Received:
    12,351
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,621
    That's a good thought, KK. No doubt exists that the earth is old, old, even older than she who must not be mentioned on this forum (not you of course). Where first cause and evolution all fits into it (if they do) is truly unknown. I have always thought the argument of ID vs. evolution an ultimately silly one. Faith is the foundation of belief in God, not science or Genesis, in my opinion.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
  6. Kalam
    Offline

    Kalam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,866
    Thanks Received:
    773
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +773
    Can you prove that that the world wasn't formed from the body of the frost giant Ymir, who fed on the milk of the primeval cow Auðumbla and was slain by Odin, Vili, and Ve, the sons of Bor?
     
  7. froggy
    Offline

    froggy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,309
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,632
    and what kinda drugs are you doing?
     
  8. Ralph
    Offline

    Ralph Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Messages:
    213
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +31
    Mr. Dawkin's rhetoric lost all credibility right after revealing the TRUTH concerning evolution while attempting to move a false premise forward. That truth and false premise is the fact that EVOLUTION is an IDEA.....not a FACT of SCIENCE but merely an Idea..aka, a speculation on the probabilities of Spontaneous Generation and its PLAUSIBLE TRUTH, a theory based upon the unprovable common descent of man deriving from DEAD MATTER via natural random happenstance. A position that has never came close to being established in the scientific method of observation and reproducible experimental findings of facts based upon consistent outcome.

    The 1st question that was asked of Mr. Dawkin's debunked the entire remainder of the interview as being based upon the SCIENTIFIC METHOD....as it is PHILOSOPHY that bases conclusion upon IDEAS...not science, as science confirms those ideas via Observed, Reproducible Experimentation....if that IDEA remains unconfirmed there can be no record of SCIENCE involved. Asking the question is not science, proving the ANSWER to be a FACT is PHYSICAL SCIENCE.
     
  9. Kalam
    Offline

    Kalam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,866
    Thanks Received:
    773
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +773
    I'll take that as a no. Clearly, the Viking creation myth is correct.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Setarcos
    Offline

    Setarcos BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    854
    Thanks Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +39
    right...
    Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
    SCIENTIFIC FACTS ABOUT EVOLUTION
    Evolution: Fact and Theory (ActionBioscience)
    Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
    Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
    CBC News - Technology & Science - FAQ: How viruses mutate

    Ever heard of MRSA?
    [​IMG]

    Why are you so stupid?
    You have to be alive before you can be dead


    I swear I've seen stupidity in caps somewhere before.
     

Share This Page