Although I am aware that debates on religion and existence of god are often inflammatory, but I didn't expect people to comment about it actively. Honestly speaking, I don't hold myself to know everything there is to know that concerns these issues, so please bear with me. :)
I will just respond to ones against Dawkins, atheism, and agnosticism.
I don't understand what he meant by "in such a context". Even if I didn't, it doesn't change the fact that Friedrich Nietzsche was against Christianity. Friedrich Nietzsche bore anti-religious idea through out his life. He was especially against Judaism and Christianity. Here is another quote.
"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are too venomous, too underhand, too underground and too petty - I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind."
I don't think taking a stance against one's religion is anything hostile. It's not like atheists physically harm anyone. I can't really think of anything hostile against Islam because it is a religion of peace. Also according Sharia Law, men are allowed to hit their wife within some rules that men is not to hit the wife's face, bruise her, make her bleed and so on. One thing Islam is not is that it is sexist.
The next fellow wrote a fair bit.
- said...
-
Nice. I heard Mr. Dawkin's recently giving a University lecture on this very book. It was interesting, but personally, a bit naive. He has the wit and personality at his disposal to not have to even worry about folks to the obvious question-begging and various ancient straw-men that he sets up to pull down. As if the central tenet of Christianity is an obsession with rewards and punishments...uh...riiiiggght. Anyways, like I said...bravo for him in securing his financial nest-egg for the 10th time over. Again, interesting speaker with that Monty Python meets Stephen Hawking-style...but really I was suprised nobody had the balls or was bright enough to point out the following:
1. a-priori assumptions for a no-thing origin or ending or an unknown, non-intelligent origin still have to be made on faith...ie. NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE...it's still a bet. A greatly relieving bet if you don't want personal dieties or whatever on your back...but nevertheless a bet. Any simple con-man...I mean logician can tell you that.
2. Related to #1. Since when did the scientific method begin doing the heavy lifting of declaring metaphysical assumptions? Since it began worshipping at the holy church of physicalism of course...again...any con-man or magician, I mean logician, can tell you that the best way to affirm something without affirming it (ie. the non-existence of God) is to just focus the mind on something else while you sneak in the new a-priori assumption. Clever. Bullshit...but clever nevertheless!
3. What is the origin of the information that matter apparently seems to be organized by? Do we have any scientific basis for making the a-priori assumption that information just happens from nowhere? ie. Can science prove...scientifically...not religiously with statements like "scientists believe" that the organizing principle and process is the result of random or chance or purpose-less causes? And if it can't why can't scientists just be honest and say..."there may be a purpose, we just DON'T WANT A GOD TO BE IT". That to me would be the honest position to take. You don't WANT there to be a God? GREAT! SAY SO! But don't use semantic jargon, and witty blightyness to smuggle in your a-priori bias AGAINST the presupposition of God. Takes a con to know a con...I mean logician to know a logician. LOL. Have a nice day and THINK FOR YOURSELF! Don't be seduced by folks who claim to dethrone that pesky God. Apply the same rules of non-contradiction that you would apply to all parties claiming epistemic authority. Then at least, whatever you decide...you do it with some kind of intellectual honesty and self-respect...Don't wanna be a sheep? Don't act like one. Baaaaaaaa. -
Richard Dawkins probably is a rich man as this fellow here described. He also did some charitable work by letting others generate some wealth for their own as well (1) (2) (3).
Here is my response
1. Dawkins is aware of this as all the other physicists are. They all know that. This is the primary reason why many physicists tend to stay as agnostics rather than as atheists. Because they are so careful about where they stand, they can't simply rule out the possibility of existence of God. However, what is unknown is unknown. There is no valid reason to believe that God was the cause of universe. Do we have any direct evidence that can prove that God created universe then? Since we do not know, We don't assume fairies and gnomes exist because there is no evidence for them. Why does he assume there is a god when there is no evidence? The default state of mind is not having a belief of God.
Dawkins takes the logical view of skeptic that any scientific theory is based on: that anything is assumed untrue until conclusive evidence is provided that shows it to be true. This is why no faith is required, and it is not "taking a bet".
2. The scientific method doesn't directly address metaphysical issues. Rational thought does. There are several principles which come to bear on the existence of god, and these principles are either foundational to science or vice versa.
"the best way to affirm something without affirming it (ie. the non-existence of God) is to just focus the mind on something else while you sneak in the new a-priori assumption."
The same principle that we use to reject the existence of gnomes and flying teapot without evidence can be used to reject the existence of god without evidence. If you believe in any god with evidence then you must also accept the existence of all other types of imaginary creatures.
3. This seems to be another classic case of theists thought of "Science is out to get religion and god" and bashing science.
Science is about making observations about the world, and using these observations to make logical predictions about the future. The reason we are able to do this is because the universe (or at the very least the part of it that we inhabit) behaves in a particular way, and that behavior seems to be relatively constant. Science has repeatedly been shown to be an effective way of organizing our observations of the world, as can be shown by advances in medicine, technology etc.
Since faith is not credible as evidence, and since one cannot violate Occam's Razor by invoking unnecessary assumptions, all one can go by is the physical evidence that can be observed in the natural universe.
I did used to have hateful view of religion before. This is what I wrote a few months back.
I personally do not mind people believing in personal god that is not affiliated to world's major organized religions, but I am very against religions.I don't hold that view anymore. I am quite divided on this issue now.
All religions are disgrace to our humanity.
Religions often glorify the life after death.
This tendency deludes people to have demeaning value that this life is short and meaningless.
Religions have used this deception to take control of people for thousands of years, restraining scientific development, and creative and imaginative thoughts.
This is a crime against humanity that can never be forgiven. Religion has committed the unforgivable sin.
Even if some people do need something to believe in, religion should not use systematic lies to adhere people.
Simple need to give a meaning to life cannot justify how we can presumptuously judge that God exists.
Religion is here to stay. It is not going away. Nietzsche declared "God is dead." and predicted that god would no longer serve humanity with purpose of morality and enlightenment almost two centuries ago. However, there are still millions of people who still remain religious. Christianity still is the largest religion in the world and the number of Muslims is growing consistently. What kind of stance should atheists and agnostics take?
Blimey, posting a scathing quote on Christianity in such a context!!!
Any chance you'll be posting anything explicitly hostile to Islam, Mr post-rock Atheist?