The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True - by Richard Dawkins

[Interbane]

So you do agree that there are more schools of thought that we need to help our understanding, as best we can, of "reality," right?

Yes, but not just "more schools of thought". There are specific methods that have produced corroborated results in a relentless, reliable, and sustainable manner. I'm not speaking of an open ended category that might include something supernatural. Such explanations have not produced the same admirable characteristics in their conclusions.

"God" has become a loaded word. Most hardboiled atheists can not get past their anger at the god of the old testament.

When you accuse many of an emotional rejection, you ignore the intellectual rejection. I think the god as represented by the old testament is an undesirable character. It truly is as simple as that ant. If you disagree on an intellectual level, I'd accuse you of rationalizing the things that are written. You know as well as I do that some of the things attributed to him are disgusting and nonsensical.

Where it gets emotional is when the rationalizations of devoted adherents continues against all good reason. If you have to backpedal by saying that the only way to save the Earth is to kill all people including babies, that will evoke an emotional reaction. Because... that is the "type" of rationalization that Muslims are guilty of when they slaughter innocents. The rationalizing of evil. It cannot be justified, and we need to draw a hard line against that sort of rationalization no matter what the source. Evil is not a means to an end of good, that should be axiomatic.

Such portions of the old testament are transparently crafted to elicit fear, and to push for adherence to the guidance of the bible. When you understand the teleology, you see that rationalizations to cover up the evil aspects are foolish and potentially dangerous.

"Religion" doesn't fly people into buildings. Idiotic, murderous radicals that pervert religion fly into buildings.

Any exclusionary ideology that's widely accepted has the potential to enable such acts. The key motive behind individuals attacks on 911 was their religion. When we investigate crimes, we follow motive. If religion has the potential to motivate evil acts, then that should be recognized.

How is it a perversion of religion if the words of the holy books actually include portions that call for the deaths of nonbelievers? That is not perversion, it is literalism. Many literalists believe the perversion is on the part of those people who don't take their entire holy book verbatim, including the nasty parts. If you've interpreted your belief 'away' from such literalism, then it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.



Happy Holidays back at ya. This is my favorite time of year.

[youkrst]

I don't know what the heck happened to all my responses...

they are in another thread ant. on page 11 of the "Do you believe in a supernatural creator, God or gods of any sort?"

BTW (notice i used your correct username i would appreciate it if you stopped calling me Yorky as my username here is youkrst - think eucharist)

and happy holidays or better yet holy happy days to all.

[ant]

BTW (notice i used your correct username i would appreciate it if you stopped calling me Yorky as my username here is youkrst - think eucharist)

I know the pronunciation you intended.
I wont contribute to your mocking of religion.

Sorry.

[ant]

When you accuse many of an emotional rejection, you ignore the intellectual rejection. I think the god as represented by the old testament is an undesirable character. It truly is as simple as that ant. If you disagree on an intellectual level, I'd accuse you of rationalizing the things that are written. You know as well as I do that some of the things attributed to him are disgusting and nonsensical.

I have never defended the god of the old testament. It's pretty obvious that that particular god's characteristics are "human all to human."
It is also the god that atheists like Dawkins are fixated on. And I actually agree with his assertion that the god of the old testament is a petty god. Quite frankly, Dawkins' continuous harangue against religion in general is just as petty.
It's unbelievable how blockheaded he is about it.

Monotheistic Science searches for one underlying reality that serves as a simple explanation for all reality.

Monotheistic Religions believe a deity transcends space and time. God is the simple explanation for all of creation.
Religion is based on faith on things unseen.
The trouble with religion is that it wants to know more than what it can observe.
It will never happen for science.

Science is a wonderful thing. But it is far from the mighty Oracle that atheists worship as their chosen god.


You can dance your way around it, but religion does NOT fly people into buildings. That's a stupid generalization.
Did atheism cause Stalin and Pol Pot to murder people by the millions?

[Robert Tulip]

I have never defended the god of the old testament. It's pretty obvious that that particular god's characteristics are "human all to [sic] human." It is also the god that atheists like Dawkins are fixated on. And I actually agree with his assertion that the god of the old testament is a petty god. Quite frankly, Dawkins' continuous harangue against religion in general is just as petty.
It's unbelievable how blockheaded he is about it.

ant, I find your confused comments very entertaining, especially your misconceptions about religion and atheism. Richard Dawkins is a far more sophisticated thinker than you give him credit for. When he has been challenged on his focus on the idiocy of the Bible, his response has been that he is criticising the public nature of mass religion, and that more sophisticated intellectual versions (eg Spong) do not represent mainstream religion. With respect, I suggest your Nietzschean critique of Jehovah (Nietzsche wrote a book called Human All Too Human) would not be pounded out from too many pulpits. Dawkins sees little point in engaging with lukewarm mixtures of magic and science. Unless religion accepts science as the basis of knowledge, and accepts that traditional metaphorical language about God is not literal, it remains on an imaginary liminal threshold that prioritises imagination (ie fantasy) over evidence and observation. Making things up is not ethical.

Monotheistic Science searches for one underlying reality that serves as a simple explanation for all reality.

Despite your provocative use of the term 'theistic', yes, you are correct that science asserts there is one reality. That is because anyone who disagrees is stupid and wrong. There is one reality. It is true there are conflicting interpretations, but reality itself is singular.

Monotheistic Religions believe a deity transcends space and time. God is the simple explanation for all of creation.

I think johnson picked you up earlier on this deceptive rhetorical use of the term 'simple'. An entity that has no evidence for it, that fails to explain anything, that requires an imaginary fantasy explanation for reality whereby psychological projection has an actual referent, that intentionally controls all nature, is complex, not simple. God is not compatible with the Ockham's Razor principle of economy of concepts.

Religion is based on faith on things unseen.
The trouble with religion is that it wants to know more than what it can observe.
It will never happen for science.

Correct, it will never happen for science, because the assertion that you know something you do not know is contrary to the scientific method, but has provided abundant fuel for religious charlatans across the ages.

Science is a wonderful thing. But it is far from the mighty Oracle that atheists worship as their chosen god.

There is no better oracle than science. Evidence is highly predictive. But evidence is not 'worshiped', it is used as a logical method.

You can dance your way around it, but religion does NOT fly people into buildings. That's a stupid generalization. Did atheism cause Stalin and Pol Pot to murder people by the millions?

The 911 terrorists were inspired by Islam. Voltaire usefully generalised the problem with his comment that believing absurdities permits atrocities. Stalin and Pol Pot turned atheism into a religion by believing absurdities. But atheism, as such, is not a religion, it is a restriction of claims to what is supported by evidence. It is possible to build religious speculation upon an atheist foundation, but there should be a methodological separation between the speculation and the evidence.

[youkrst]

I know the pronunciation you intended.
I wont contribute to your mocking of religion.

you've got me all wrong ant!

my username youkrst is meant to celebrate the presence of the best in all of us.

like it says in the bible "christ in YOU the hope of glory"

indeed "youkrst" is simply a contraction of "christ in you" with suitable tip of the hat to an egyptian forerunner and a slight play on words involving a certain eucharist.

i think even HJ would be pleased, after all the bible has him saying

"so that they may all be one. Just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me."

it is precisely this spirit that i mirror in the username youkrst.

[johnson1010]

God is a simple explanation?

[Dexter]

The foundations of the material world seems to be the quantum relm
Quantum mechanics is NOT logical. It does not subscribe to man's logic.

The trouble with cowardly agnostics is that they trumpet science as the only source of knowledge
That is quite ignorant

Guess what quantum mechanics is? Science!

Scientists were skeptical of the experimental results at first, as they should be. Einstein died a skeptic, but however much scientists revere him, his authority has no weight in the long run.

You want science to be something like, "Well, we're staking our claim on matter as particles." So if it turns out to be wrong, then science loses, and something (God?) takes its place. But your anti-science screeds can never win. If there is something to explain about the world, it becomes part of science. If there is convincing evidence of ESP or "ghosts" or whatever, it will be science. To you it may seem unfair because you want "science" to lose for some reason; to most people it is progress.

[geo]

Whatever you may think of Dawkins, this book is about science, not about God. I just bought a copy for my 12-year-old granddaughter. (Yes, I'm a freakin' grandfather). "God" isn't even in the index.

As Pullman says in the blurb on the back, this is "the clearest and most beautifully written introduction to science I've ever read."

So my point is that anyone who automatically equates science with being anti religion is coming at it from a dogmatic perspective.

[Interbane]

I have never defended the god of the old testament. It's pretty obvious that that particular god's characteristics are "human all to human."

Many of the modern gods that people have invented lack that "humanity" in their characteristics. Back in the day, they were quite new at creating gods, and their conceptions allowed too much of the authors to bleed through. Whoever drafted up the new testament definitely learned a few lessons from the old testament. Jesus is a more approachable character, and the themes are much much better.