Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins
by John Allemang
Reposted from The (Toronto) Globe and Mail:
The world's best-known atheist talks to John Allemang about life, dinosaurs and a cabinet minister he calls a 'complete idiot'
There's at least one thing Richard Dawkins has in common with the God he so famously (and successfully) doesn't believe in: Each of them has a reputation for being rather solemn when it comes to explaining the meaning of things.
The omnipotent author of The Ten Commandments presumably doesn't worry about what people think, but the bestselling author of The God Delusion is a little more sensitive. "I'd like to think my book is full of jokes," says the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, a title that now more often requires him to challenge the misunderstandings preferred by the public in these unenlightened times.
When 42 per cent of the Canadian population, according to a recent Angus Reid poll, profess to believe that dinosaurs roamed the Earth alongside humans in recent history, a devoted Darwinian like Dr. Dawkins is compelled to take his mission more seriously than he might like.
But in doing so, and insisting with every bit of scientific rigour he can bring to bear that God is a cruel delusion, he worries that his brand of atheism might begin to be seen as the no-fun choice, a scholarly attack on the easy certainties of religion with little to offer humanity by way of an alternative.
So here's The Word According To Richard Dawkins, delivered not through stone tablets handed down from the holy ozone layer but over bitter coffee in a Toronto bistro: Good times start with atheism.
"Life is joyful," he says, going into one of his flights of evolutionist ecstasy, "and it becomes even more joyful when you know it's finite, because you've got to make the most of it while you've got it. You don't have to regard existence as this 'vale of tears,' a preparation for a better life to come where you have to live in misery in this life because you're going to reap your reward in heaven - not a bit. This is it, so you better make the most of it."
Atheists, like new-age Hollywood starlets, live in the moment - and this is a good one for Dr. Dawkins. His book has sold more than a million copies worldwide and has just been released in paperback. An endless promoter of himself as well as of public understanding, he visited Toronto to attend a two-day thinkfest called ideaCity at which he was a marquee attraction.
In all his atheistic immediacy, there's none of that worry about Judgment Day's eternal torment, the post-mortem investigation at the Pearly Gates that inspires the Oxford professor's jokey side. "Why are there so many old people in church?" he asks, pauses the required beat, then answers. "Cramming for the final."
The atheist's life course is exam-free, at least if you don't count earthbound challenges such as Preston Manning's attack on The God Delusion published in The Globe and Mail this week. Mr. Manning, acknowledging the runaway success of atheism promoters such as Dr. Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great) and Sam Harris (The End of Faith), took the know-it-all forces of godlessness to task for acting like a 21st-century Inquisition, with the cruelties of their cold logic picking up where the burning-at-the-stake part left off. While Mr. Manning's main concern seemed to be that the atheists were getting a bit above themselves in trying to monopolize the Truth, he used a particularly Canadian argument for diversity to try to undermine The God Delusion.
Dr. Dawkins is inclined to say religion endures in the age of science because it is passed on from parent to child as an adaptive trait - children who listen to what their elders tell them have a better chance of staying alive than those who don't.
Keeping this in mind, he calls it "child abuse" to label children Catholics or Amish or Muslims when they are too young to have thought critically about their imposed beliefs. With typical relentlessness, he goes on to chide liberals who hesitate to join him in critiquing parental indoctrination because they're too willing to respect cultural diversity.
Spotting an opening, Mr. Manning idly pondered whether atheism's inquisitors were intent on moving in on Canada's most spiritual sector, the aboriginal peoples: "...To suggest that their children should be taken away from them and re-educated in some sort of scientific residential schools," he wrote, "would be to make a grievous mistake."
In fact, the allied forces of militant atheism have never called for science-based kiddie concentration camps, and Dr. Dawkins is more heartened than exasperated by the misrepresentation. "Preston Manning's suggestion that I want to take children away from their parents and deprive them of their heritage may be libellous, but I really can't be bothered to find out. Manning's article is interesting only as an indication of how desperately panicked religious apologists of his kind are becoming."
It wasn't so long ago that the conservative Christian viewpoint was in the ascendancy and more difficult to dismiss, as shown by the electoral successes of George W. Bush, Stephen Harper and even Dr. Dawkins's pious compatriot Tony Blair. But when a book like The God Delusion sells a million copies and is being translated into 31 languages, it's clear that atheists and humanists shouldn't have been so easily cowed.
And yet when Democratic presidential candidates in the United States are given a chance to distance themselves from the Republican holy warriors, they still to a man (and woman) testify to a belief in the God that Dr. Dawkins finds so deluding.
"No doubt all of them do that to win votes," he says with a pragmatism that doesn't always come across in his writing. "I can't say I exactly blame them for that. I wonder if they're right, though. It does occur to me that all these closeted unbelievers might be a hell of a lot more numerous than people realize. It may be one of the downsides of democracy that you have to pander to the lowest common denominator, but it's never clear to me why you'd pander to the religious constituency when the free-thinking constituency might actually be rather big."
This comes from a man who doesn't testify in those U.S. court cases about the teaching of evolution because "I'm not a good politician. ... One of the things the creationist lobby wants to hear is that evolutionism leads to atheism, and since I'd have to say that to a jury, the evolutionists would lose the case immediately."
Dr. Dawkins may be right about not being an effective politician. He is often accused of being shrill and insensitive in his attacks on religion ("Religion has come to expect a free ride and not to be criticized the way we'd criticize, say, a sports team"), but for him that's just a professional style. "Scientists are accustomed to calling a spade a spade. If something is nonsense, it shouldn't be seen as hurtful to criticize it."
For all his truth-telling rigour and eagerness to spot delusions, Dr. Dawkins can be surprisingly willing to play along with less enlightened members of the species. As a senior fellow at an ancient Oxford college, he is often called upon to recite the Latin grace before dinner. He does so cheerfully, quoting the principle enunciated by a flexible and comfort-loving atheist colleague that "I will not utter falsehoods, but I have no objection to uttering meaningless statements."
But he clearly has his limits. He takes as an example the fundamentalist Christian view that the Earth, beginning with Genesis, is 6,000 years old - a statement of faith he labels "completely childish and insane." I can't help mentioning that Canada's Minister of Public Security, Stockwell Day, has been known to express this belief in his time.
"This man is a cabinet minister?" Dr. Dawkins says incredulously, ordering me to make note of his rolling eyes. "Tell him his belief is equivalent to believing that the width of North America, from shall we say New York to San Francisco, is 7.8 yards - that's the scale of the error he's buying into. This man is the minister responsible for security? He's clearly a complete idiot - or ignorant, anyway. Ignorance by itself is no crime, but ignorance in a cabinet minister is."
He makes another joke, pointing out that it's a lot harder for terrorists and dinosaurs to sneak across the border when it's only 7.8 yards wide. And then, like a good scientist (and a bad politician), Dr. Dawkins submits his rhetoric to scrutiny. Is it really the case, he asks himself, questioning his previous assumption, that "someone whose view of the universe is so cockeyed is disqualified from making sensible decisions about human politics? I suppose in a strict sense it doesn't matter, because you don't have to know how old the world is to protect the state.
"Yet," he adds, because a spade remains a spade, "I can't help feeling that you should not trust the decision-making ability of a man whose view of the world is so wrongheaded. If you thought the Earth was flat - and it's about as absurd - could you still protect Canada's borders?"
John Allemang is a feature writer with The Globe and Mail.
The world's best-known atheist talks to John Allemang about life, dinosaurs and a cabinet minister he calls a 'complete idiot'
There's at least one thing Richard Dawkins has in common with the God he so famously (and successfully) doesn't believe in: Each of them has a reputation for being rather solemn when it comes to explaining the meaning of things.
The omnipotent author of The Ten Commandments presumably doesn't worry about what people think, but the bestselling author of The God Delusion is a little more sensitive. "I'd like to think my book is full of jokes," says the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, a title that now more often requires him to challenge the misunderstandings preferred by the public in these unenlightened times.
When 42 per cent of the Canadian population, according to a recent Angus Reid poll, profess to believe that dinosaurs roamed the Earth alongside humans in recent history, a devoted Darwinian like Dr. Dawkins is compelled to take his mission more seriously than he might like.
But in doing so, and insisting with every bit of scientific rigour he can bring to bear that God is a cruel delusion, he worries that his brand of atheism might begin to be seen as the no-fun choice, a scholarly attack on the easy certainties of religion with little to offer humanity by way of an alternative.
So here's The Word According To Richard Dawkins, delivered not through stone tablets handed down from the holy ozone layer but over bitter coffee in a Toronto bistro: Good times start with atheism.
"Life is joyful," he says, going into one of his flights of evolutionist ecstasy, "and it becomes even more joyful when you know it's finite, because you've got to make the most of it while you've got it. You don't have to regard existence as this 'vale of tears,' a preparation for a better life to come where you have to live in misery in this life because you're going to reap your reward in heaven - not a bit. This is it, so you better make the most of it."
Atheists, like new-age Hollywood starlets, live in the moment - and this is a good one for Dr. Dawkins. His book has sold more than a million copies worldwide and has just been released in paperback. An endless promoter of himself as well as of public understanding, he visited Toronto to attend a two-day thinkfest called ideaCity at which he was a marquee attraction.
In all his atheistic immediacy, there's none of that worry about Judgment Day's eternal torment, the post-mortem investigation at the Pearly Gates that inspires the Oxford professor's jokey side. "Why are there so many old people in church?" he asks, pauses the required beat, then answers. "Cramming for the final."
The atheist's life course is exam-free, at least if you don't count earthbound challenges such as Preston Manning's attack on The God Delusion published in The Globe and Mail this week. Mr. Manning, acknowledging the runaway success of atheism promoters such as Dr. Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great) and Sam Harris (The End of Faith), took the know-it-all forces of godlessness to task for acting like a 21st-century Inquisition, with the cruelties of their cold logic picking up where the burning-at-the-stake part left off. While Mr. Manning's main concern seemed to be that the atheists were getting a bit above themselves in trying to monopolize the Truth, he used a particularly Canadian argument for diversity to try to undermine The God Delusion.
Dr. Dawkins is inclined to say religion endures in the age of science because it is passed on from parent to child as an adaptive trait - children who listen to what their elders tell them have a better chance of staying alive than those who don't.
Keeping this in mind, he calls it "child abuse" to label children Catholics or Amish or Muslims when they are too young to have thought critically about their imposed beliefs. With typical relentlessness, he goes on to chide liberals who hesitate to join him in critiquing parental indoctrination because they're too willing to respect cultural diversity.
Spotting an opening, Mr. Manning idly pondered whether atheism's inquisitors were intent on moving in on Canada's most spiritual sector, the aboriginal peoples: "...To suggest that their children should be taken away from them and re-educated in some sort of scientific residential schools," he wrote, "would be to make a grievous mistake."
In fact, the allied forces of militant atheism have never called for science-based kiddie concentration camps, and Dr. Dawkins is more heartened than exasperated by the misrepresentation. "Preston Manning's suggestion that I want to take children away from their parents and deprive them of their heritage may be libellous, but I really can't be bothered to find out. Manning's article is interesting only as an indication of how desperately panicked religious apologists of his kind are becoming."
It wasn't so long ago that the conservative Christian viewpoint was in the ascendancy and more difficult to dismiss, as shown by the electoral successes of George W. Bush, Stephen Harper and even Dr. Dawkins's pious compatriot Tony Blair. But when a book like The God Delusion sells a million copies and is being translated into 31 languages, it's clear that atheists and humanists shouldn't have been so easily cowed.
And yet when Democratic presidential candidates in the United States are given a chance to distance themselves from the Republican holy warriors, they still to a man (and woman) testify to a belief in the God that Dr. Dawkins finds so deluding.
"No doubt all of them do that to win votes," he says with a pragmatism that doesn't always come across in his writing. "I can't say I exactly blame them for that. I wonder if they're right, though. It does occur to me that all these closeted unbelievers might be a hell of a lot more numerous than people realize. It may be one of the downsides of democracy that you have to pander to the lowest common denominator, but it's never clear to me why you'd pander to the religious constituency when the free-thinking constituency might actually be rather big."
This comes from a man who doesn't testify in those U.S. court cases about the teaching of evolution because "I'm not a good politician. ... One of the things the creationist lobby wants to hear is that evolutionism leads to atheism, and since I'd have to say that to a jury, the evolutionists would lose the case immediately."
Dr. Dawkins may be right about not being an effective politician. He is often accused of being shrill and insensitive in his attacks on religion ("Religion has come to expect a free ride and not to be criticized the way we'd criticize, say, a sports team"), but for him that's just a professional style. "Scientists are accustomed to calling a spade a spade. If something is nonsense, it shouldn't be seen as hurtful to criticize it."
For all his truth-telling rigour and eagerness to spot delusions, Dr. Dawkins can be surprisingly willing to play along with less enlightened members of the species. As a senior fellow at an ancient Oxford college, he is often called upon to recite the Latin grace before dinner. He does so cheerfully, quoting the principle enunciated by a flexible and comfort-loving atheist colleague that "I will not utter falsehoods, but I have no objection to uttering meaningless statements."
But he clearly has his limits. He takes as an example the fundamentalist Christian view that the Earth, beginning with Genesis, is 6,000 years old - a statement of faith he labels "completely childish and insane." I can't help mentioning that Canada's Minister of Public Security, Stockwell Day, has been known to express this belief in his time.
"This man is a cabinet minister?" Dr. Dawkins says incredulously, ordering me to make note of his rolling eyes. "Tell him his belief is equivalent to believing that the width of North America, from shall we say New York to San Francisco, is 7.8 yards - that's the scale of the error he's buying into. This man is the minister responsible for security? He's clearly a complete idiot - or ignorant, anyway. Ignorance by itself is no crime, but ignorance in a cabinet minister is."
He makes another joke, pointing out that it's a lot harder for terrorists and dinosaurs to sneak across the border when it's only 7.8 yards wide. And then, like a good scientist (and a bad politician), Dr. Dawkins submits his rhetoric to scrutiny. Is it really the case, he asks himself, questioning his previous assumption, that "someone whose view of the universe is so cockeyed is disqualified from making sensible decisions about human politics? I suppose in a strict sense it doesn't matter, because you don't have to know how old the world is to protect the state.
"Yet," he adds, because a spade remains a spade, "I can't help feeling that you should not trust the decision-making ability of a man whose view of the world is so wrongheaded. If you thought the Earth was flat - and it's about as absurd - could you still protect Canada's borders?"
John Allemang is a feature writer with The Globe and Mail.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, June 24, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 64 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #51701 by PrimeNumbers on June 24, 2007 at 7:20 am
Yes, he's a complete idiot and an embarrassment to Canada. At every chance possible the crazy beliefs of these fundies need to be publically outed. Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
3. Comment #51703 by kizumoto on June 24, 2007 at 7:29 am
Thanks to John Allemang, for giving Richard Dawkins a chance to rebuff Preston's column.And by the way, one of the 31 translations mentioned above appeared on the bookshelves this week here in Japan, where I live. It might be well timed for Japan. A couple of months ago, a book-length evangelical tract called Power for Living was being heavily promoted on Japanese TV.
I was a little taken aback by the reference to RD as, "An endless promoter of himself ". It seems to me he endlessly promotes his ideas; which is great.
Other Comments by kizumoto
4. Comment #51705 by danceswithanxiety on June 24, 2007 at 8:03 am
You Canadians should count yourselves lucky that only one high-ranking officer of your government is awash in ignorance! Other Comments by danceswithanxiety
5. Comment #51707 by Shrunk on June 24, 2007 at 8:24 am
There have been a few references here to Stephen Harper being a Christian fundamentalist, or at least being sympathetic to their cause. However, in the time he has been in office, few of his statements or policies seem to have been motivated by such a philosophy. There was the vote to revisit the issue of gay marriage, but that seemed to me to be little more than a sop to the far-right wing of his party, and his heart never really seemed to be in that debate. If anything, he appeared relieved when the motion failed and he was able to declare the issue closed.There are two, equally cynical views to take. The first is that he doesn't hold very strong religious beliefs, but has to make a show of it to placate certain elements of his constituency. The other is that he is a closet faith-head but has had to hide the fact because of the constraints of a minority government, and if he ever wins majority he will show his true colours. (Some members of the evangelical right, a much weaker force here than south of the border, seem to hold this hope.)
Does anyone have evidence of what Harper's actual views are re: the degree to which public policy should be influenced by relgious ideology? We could be having an election at any moment and, although there is no way I am voting for Harper in any event, I'd at least like to know how frightened I should be by the prospect of a Conservative majority.
Other Comments by Shrunk
6. Comment #51710 by kaiserkriss on June 24, 2007 at 8:57 am
Shrunk... I totally agree with RD that "Doris Day" is a complete faith induced moron with about as much grey matter between his ears as a tadpole. Harper on the other hand is a pragmatist, who grew up in Ontario and moved to Alberta.
He seems to be more moved by the principles of fairness and fiscal responsibility, taking responsibility for your own actions, than any religious fervour. Not even sure he attends church regularly, if at all, unlike Cretien and Martin, who Both made a big deal about how catholic they were.
Most of the support in the west for Harper and co comes from their policies with regards to freedom of economic activity, low taxes, the usual right wing rhetoric, not from religious zeal.
Yes, there are a few religious nuts out here, including Preston, but unlike in the USA, in most cases, they don't try to force it down other peoples throats. It just seems that way, as is usual for the vocal minority.
The silent majority, and I blame our education system, probably tend to be closer to agnostic than religious, because they really haven't thought much about the issues. Once confronted with how irrational their views are, they have atheist views, but don't call themselves that, because it really is not important to them to attach a label to the issue, and not wanting to offend the "establishment". jcw
Other Comments by kaiserkriss
7. Comment #51711 by JesusH on June 24, 2007 at 9:02 am
Harper has been a good PM under the difficult circumstances of a minority government.Until he invokes policies based on religion that people disagree with they should leave the thought crime analysis out of it.
The only hidden agenda was the one that came to light when our tax payer dollars were being handed in paper bags under tables to Liberal bagman through illegal kickbacks.
Other Comments by JesusH
8. Comment #51712 by SMART on June 24, 2007 at 9:02 am
A few years ago Stockwell Day refused a Sunday interview with the press because apparently the creator of our 28 billion light-year diameter universe required him to rest on the sabbath. (no joke!) What's even more worrying than this idiot being a cabinet member is that we Canadians have a prime minister who put him there!Other Comments by SMART
9. Comment #51715 by ThomasB on June 24, 2007 at 9:24 am
A few points:
As Public Safety Minister, Stockwell Day oversees the development of policies addressing bird flu. I wonder how his fundamental rejection of evolution allows him to meet the threat of fast-evolving agents of disease.
It would be great if Day were the only fundamentalist in our minority government. The troubling truth is that the PM and about 70 of the MP's in his caucus are evangelical Christians. On godly matters, these MPs are effectively muzzled by PM Harper who rightly recognizes that his party will never achieve a majority if his Ministers freely speak their beliefs. For the most part, the media have given Conservative government a free ride on this, with the enlightening exception of this article:
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.10-politics-stephen-harper-and-the-theocons/
Harper's agenda turns out to be hidden only to those who don't know where to look. Within weeks after the election, the first leak about his upcoming legislative package outlined a plan by Justice Minister Vic Toews, one of the most conservative evangelicals in his cabinet, to raise the age of sexual consent to sixteen from fourteen. The media greeted the scoop with a barely concealed yawn, but the Evangelical Fellowship, which had been lobbying for years on the issue, recognized it as a custom-tailored bulletin. Says Epp Buckingham, "We took it as a message that we were being heard."
Borrowing a page from Bush's White House, which boasts a deputy responsible for "Christian outreach," Harper has installed a point man for the religious right, among other groups, in his government, under the title "director of stakeholder relations." But evangelical activists know that a more direct route to the prime minister is through his parliamentary secretary, Jason Kenney. After the election, many in the Ottawa press corps were astonished when the Calgary loyalist who served as a critic in every recent Reform/Alliance shadow cabinet didn't win a portfolio. But these days, Kenney may have more clout than any minister, playing emissary to groups with whom Harper doesn't wish to leave prime ministerial fingerprints, above all on the religious right. Despite being a Catholic, Kenney is a regular on the evangelical circuit, turning up at so-con confabs and orchestrating discreet meetings with the boss. "Jason," says one Ottawa insider, "has a lot more influence than you might think."
Other Comments by ThomasB
10. Comment #51717 by Bookman on June 24, 2007 at 9:38 am
ThomasB -- you beat me to the punch with the Walrus article. There is a majority of evangelicals in the government caucus -- thank goodness they don't have a majority governement.Jesus H wrote: "Until he invokes policies based on religion that people disagree with they should leave the thought crime analysis out of it."
Harper went as far as he could with the anti-gay "traditional marriage" vote in the House. Though it was basically symbolic, since he knew he would loose, it gives us some insight into his mind. Canadians have a right to know whether he plans to try to legislate his religious views or install religious fanatics into positions of power should he gain a majority. The evidence suggests that he does have such plans (as long as they don't get him de-elected).
Other Comments by Bookman
11. Comment #51718 by LenW on June 24, 2007 at 9:44 am
My own opinion of Harper is that he is 90% interested in the economy and 10% interested in restructuring the government. I don't think he is in the least bit interested in abortion, gay marriage, war on terror, etc.I voted Conservative in the last election and will do so again in the next election, but I miss the old Progressive Conservative party. I agreed with those guys on almost every issue.
Other Comments by LenW
12. Comment #51721 by ThomasB on June 24, 2007 at 10:09 am
Here's another interview with RD by a print reporter (National Post) in Toronto.Celebrity deity-slayer has a bad day
DAWKINS LECTURE; Evolutionary biologist professes belief in aliens
Joseph Brean, National Post
Published: Thursday, June 21, 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/canada/story.html?id=38980885-9288-4a5a-afff-0a6a9356a4b7
Other Comments by ThomasB
13. Comment #51727 by Dr Benway on June 24, 2007 at 11:07 am
I dislike the title of this article. I'm generally in favor of snarky, but feel snarkiness ought to be reserved for dishonest or willfully ignorant self-important types, or for personal offense.
For example, I wouldn't be snarky to Mohammed Ali, even though he called himself "the best," because when he said that he was, in fact, the best. And I wouldn't be snarky to someone who referred to Rev. Falwell as a fatuous bigot for similar reasons.
I would grant the BA woman with the stupid face a few snarky remarks. She's a right to take offense, poor dear.
But this author didn't make clear to me the basis for his knowing smirk. He actually concludes the article with an anecdote showing that Dawkins can be reflective and uncertain.
So, looks like snarkiness for snarkiness' sake. Which is so 1990s.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
14. Comment #51731 by Satanburiedfossils on June 24, 2007 at 11:42 am
Christian science book:Biblical geology:
Age of the earth: 6000 years (KJV bible)
Biblical astronomy:
earth: a flat disk on pillars surrounded by water (Genesis 1:6-10; 1 Samuel 2:8; 2 Samuel 22:16; 1 Chronicles 16:30; Job 9:6, 28:24, 38:4-6, 38:13; Psalm 18:15, 48:10, 59:13, 61:2, 93:1, 96:10, 103:12, 104:5, 136:6; Proverbs 8:29; Isaiah 24:18, 40:21-22, 41:9, 48:13; Ezekiel 7:2; Daniel 4:10-11; Romans 10:18; Revelations 7:1, 20:8)
firmament: a hard, shiny, crystal-like structure that supports an ocean of water in the sky (Genesis 1:6; Job 37:18; Ezekiel 1:22; Daniel 12:3; Psalm 19:1, 148:4)
stars: shiny specks stuck to the firmament (Isaiah 34:4; Daniel 8:10; Mark 13:25; Revelation 1:16, 6:13) See Isaiah 40:26 for an explanation of why stars move across the sky. Interesting fact: Stars can hover over specific places on the earth. (Matthew 2:9)
sun, moon: lamps hanging from the firmament, whose movements can be remotely controlled by humans (Genesis 1:16; Joshua 10:12-13; Job 9:7; Psalm 19:4-6, 136:7-9; Isaiah 38:8; Matthew 24:29)
Biblical periodic table:
| Earth | Fire | Air | Water |
[source: http://www.re-discovery.org/per_table.gif]
Biblical geometry:
pi = 3 (1 Kings 7:23)
Christian math:
1 + 1 + 1 = 1
(See "Trinity" for the proof.)
Answer key at back of book:
Answer to all quiz questions: God made it.
Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils
15. Comment #51734 by kaiserkriss on June 24, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Quote: Spotting an opening, Mr. Manning idly pondered whether atheism's inquisitors were intent on moving in on Canada's most spiritual sector, the aboriginal peoples: "...To suggest that their children should be taken away from them and re-educated in some sort of scientific residential schools," he wrote, "would be to make a grievous mistake."Substitute the word "scientific" with the word religious...Is this not EXACTLY what ALL Religious based schools have done in the past, and still do today??
I say "what is good for the goose is good for the gander."
Preston is once again wrapping himself and his cause in the mantle of righteousness, and EVERBODY is falling for it.jcw
Other Comments by kaiserkriss
16. Comment #51738 by phil rimmer on June 24, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Curious article. In many ways it does a good journalistic job of accurately encapsulating the protagonists ideas in some well chosen quotes. I just suspect he doesn't give much of a damn about the ideas themselves.Could be that John Allenmang is being snarky, Dr B. Personally, I think of it more as being flip. He's just a competent journalist who knows by staying postmodern and ostensibly value-free he will get more readers and more work.
"Atheists, like new-age Hollywood starlets, live in the moment" is a pretty spurious dig, but the comment near the end, "...then, like a good scientist (and a bad politician), Dr. Dawkins submits his rhetoric to scrutiny.." pretty much nails the apparent worthiness of RD's character.
On second thoughts maybe this is a smart article after all. Trey Parker and Matt Stone of Southpark
have learned that before you can criticize one side of an argument, first you have to make fun of the preferred side, pointing out some of its failings too, even if these are fabricated. (RD suffered horribly on a personal basis in Southpark, but his ideas did not) This "trick" is used to keep ratings whilst being contentious, and may actually help get ideas to those most resistant.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
17. Comment #51740 by ricey on June 24, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Well said Linda,What a scary thought that a guy who thinks that the Flintstones is a true story could join the socially dangerous crowd of religious fundamentalists that hold the top jobs in too many nations
I'll remember this discussion for Linda's comment more than anything else!
Other Comments by ricey
18. Comment #51745 by Shuggy on June 24, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Kaiserkriss wrote:Harper on the other hand is a pragmatist, who grew up in Ontario and moved to Alberta.This is something I don't know about Canadian geography - what makes it pragmatic to move from Ontario to Alberta? I had the impression there were a fair few pragmatic people still in Ontario...
[Stockwell Day']s belief is equivalent to believing that the width of North America, from shall we say New York to San Francisco, is 7.8 yardsI have illustrated this (using an earlier figure - 28 feet) and it's on products at
http://www.cafepress.com/wero/2420941
Other Comments by Shuggy
19. Comment #51746 by atheist_peace on June 24, 2007 at 4:36 pm
"When 42 per cent of the Canadian population, according to a recent Angus Reid poll, profess to believe that dinosaurs roamed the Earth alongside humans in recent history..."What? Is our country really that fucking stupid? They ought to do a province by province poll on the same topic. I'd like to think that Ontario, BC, and Quebec would have more rational results.
With 42%, Harper has a serious chance of getting a majority. And a Harper majority is to Canada what George W. Bush is to the U.S.
Other Comments by atheist_peace
20. Comment #51750 by kaiserkriss on June 24, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Shuggy... sorry for the confusion. Albertans tend to be regarded as die hard rednecks with very little tolerance for Ontarians. Many Canadians refer to Harper as an Albertan, when in fact he was raised in Ontario. Ontario as we all know is the self proclaimed "Center of the Universe" (dig,dig)and epitomises rational / liberal thought in the view of its inhabitants, so my reference to Harper as a pragmatist stems from the combination of his Ontarian liberal, worldly upbringing and the Western redneck he is now mistaken for. Make more sense? jcw
Other Comments by kaiserkriss
21. Comment #51752 by maton100 on June 24, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Phil Rimmer wrote: On second thoughts maybe this is a smart article after all. Trey Parker and Matt Stone of Southparkhave learned that before you can criticize one side of an argument, first you have to make fun of the preferred side, pointing out some of its failings too, even if these are fabricated. (RD suffered horribly on a personal basis in Southpark, but his ideas did not) This "trick" is used to keep ratings whilst being contentious, and may actually help get ideas to those most resistant.
Phil, I concur. This technique is often used to great effect at http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com (a satirical site that falls heavily on the atheist side). In order to prove a point and confuse the reader, it shows how absurd religion is by allowing the humor to apply in all directions. Of course, if anyone pays close attention, there is nothing but praise for the non-believers.
Other Comments by maton100
22. Comment #51753 by Canuck#1 on June 24, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Yes I am Canadian and I disassoaciate myself from Messrs. Allemang and Brean. "Look how smart we are.....we demolished an Oxford prof. by revealing things like he spilled his coffee or by making him a Moses like figure receiving his information on stone tablets..... All these writers accomplish is to remind us that some individuals never get beyond the teenage years. As a retired teacher your mark is D-..... the articles are shallow and self-serving....Look at me, I can write without one worthwhile idea. A rewrite is due next week! Other Comments by Canuck#1
23. Comment #51754 by kaiserkriss on June 24, 2007 at 5:13 pm
atheist_peace: I can't talk for Ontario or Quebec, however BC is an entirely another matter. The number of nut job believers there is incredible, stating with the Sons of freedom Dukabors via various radical Mormon sects, to quite poorly educated in the sciences new immigrants in Vancouver from Asia.I have quite a few WELL educated east Asian acquaintances who are quite fundamental in their practices and outlook. They are in fact quite shocked by the fact that I'm an atheist, since they regard my morals above reproach..
As for Alberta, yes there are a few older generation believers around, who can be quite vocal, however better education of the young, has left enough of an impact for many to be quite sceptic about religion, more so those in the sciences.
Even individuals who went to Religious schools are quite unsure of their faith when the hypocrisy and irrationality of religion is POINTED out to them.
At least in the urban centers of Alberta, I would suggest that Angus Reid poll would show a significantly lower percentage than the 42% suggested. jcw
Other Comments by kaiserkriss
24. Comment #51756 by ferfuracious on June 24, 2007 at 5:37 pm
"The omnipotent author of The Ten Commandments presumably doesn't worry about what people think,"Allemang should have actually read the commandments, specifically:
""I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me..."
"Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
"Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..."
"Remember [zachor] the Sabbath day and keep it holy"
Other Comments by ferfuracious
25. Comment #51757 by Shuggy on June 24, 2007 at 5:53 pm
ferfuracious wroteHuh? Proves his point. None of those shows any sign of worrying what people think, just orders them to think some other way. Especially "Thou shalt not covet", ie, thou shalt not want what thou wantest, a thoughtcrime impossible not to break."The omnipotent author of The Ten Commandments presumably doesn't worry about what people think,"
Allemang should have actually read the commandments, specifically:
""I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me..."
"Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
"Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..."
"Remember [zachor] the Sabbath day and keep it holy"
If I'd been Moses and God said "I brought you out of the house of slavery" I'd say "Took your time about it, didn't you? Maybe if you hadn't sent all those plagues first AND hardened Pharaoh's heart, Pharaoh wouldn't have followed and we'd still be on good terms."
Other Comments by Shuggy
26. Comment #51762 by atheist_peace on June 24, 2007 at 6:07 pm
kaiserkriss, you make many good points. I am Vancouver-centric and often forget that parts of BC exist. Areas like the north, Okanagan, and Island are as religious as the prairies. Overall, however, BC is the least religious province, and I pray to the FSM that it stays that way.I've never really thought about the impact of immigrants on religion in BC. But we do have a large population of Sikhs, a relatively small religion but very radical. Additionally, we have more and more Muslims moving here every year and we all know how they feel about civil liberties, especially towards women and homosexuals. Since the vast majority of China is Buddhist, I usually assume that Chinese immigrants here are Buddhist as well. But I often meet Chinese Christians and always wonder how Christ's imperialists got to them too. And I've never met a Filipino who wasn't Catholic. So while there is a large number of Atheists and Agnostics in BC, it seems our numbers might soon fade.
Other Comments by atheist_peace
27. Comment #51763 by Astroboy on June 24, 2007 at 6:35 pm
He takes as an example the fundamentalist Christian view that the Earth, beginning with Genesis, is 6,000 years old - a statement of faith he labels "completely childish and insane." I can't help mentioning that Canada's Minister of Public Security, Stockwell Day, has been known to express this belief in his time.
haha... what kind of minister is he? how did he get his job with that kind of intelligence? sheesh
Other Comments by Astroboy
28. Comment #51764 by PaulEmecz on June 24, 2007 at 7:05 pm
"One of the things the creationist lobby wants to hear is that evolutionism leads to atheism, and since I'd have to say that to a jury, the evolutionists would lose the case immediately."How can Dawkins get away with 'evolutionism leads to atheism' when he's a scientist?
Imagine if there was convincing scientific evidence that Roswell was a hoax. Would that lead to belief that there is no intelligent life in other star systems?
How can a theory about the development of life on earth provide any evidence, one way or another, relevant to the question of whether there is intelligent life outside this universe or whether such life could have been involved in causing this universe to come into existence?
"Evolutionism leads to atheism" is a totally unscientific statement, and if Dawkins feels he would 'have to say that to a jury', he is obviously making a huge error either of scientific reasoning or jurisprudence.
Other Comments by PaulEmecz
29. Comment #51767 by Russell Blackford on June 24, 2007 at 7:54 pm
^Be fair. Evolution does not entail atheism, but it has had a huge psychological and sociological impact that has tended to favour atheism and subvert Christian belief. That is simply historical fact, apart from whatever anecdotal evidence Dawkins would have.If Dawkins gave evidence, he would be subjected to cross-examination, and any competent cross-examining barrister or trial attorney would have no trouble thinking of some propositions along the lines we're discussing that (1) are very likely true, (2) are believed by Dawkins, (3) would do the cause no good in at least some circumstances, depending on the nature of the judge, or whatever. It's not a matter of Dawkins voluntarily blurting out something as broad and dubious as "Evolutionism leads to atheism." It's a matter of how a good courtroom advocate could get him to agree with carefully thought out, potentially damaging propositions.
Just think about it:
Barrister: You are an atheist, aren't you Professor Dawkins?
Dawkins: Yes.
Barrister: Do you believe that it became easier to be an atheist after Darwin published The Origins of Species?
Dawkins: On the Origin of Species ... but, yes.
Barrister: It was harder for pre-Darwinian atheists like David Hume?
Dawkins: I believe so.
Barrister: And that's because Darwinian theory offered an account of the complexity and order of biological nature that people like Hume lacked?
Dawkins: Essentially yes. (Qualifies point slightly but not in any way that basically disagrees with it.)
Barrister: Is it your experience that the proportion of atheists among evolutionary biologists is higher than in the general population?
Dawkins: Yes it is.
.... and so on. Give any competent lawyer time to prepare, and this line of questioning could go on for hours, with Dawkins being able to do very little more than say "Yes" to question after question. Courtroom cross-examination is nothing like a TV interview. Cross-examining barristers know how to control witnesses and destroy their credibility, they are allowed to ask nothing but leading ("yes/no") questions if they so choose, and they have all the time they want in which to do the job.
I don't blame him for thinking that this could be counterproductive.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
30. Comment #51775 by Lauregon on June 24, 2007 at 9:56 pm
<"Shrill and insensitive," eh? In other words, Dawkins' arguments against supernatural beliefs are too carefully reasoned for believers to rebut successfully!
I, for one, am continually impressed by how thoroughly civil and conciliatory Dawkins is with those he debates, interviews, and is interviewed by. I've never experienced him as being shrill or insensitive.
Other Comments by Lauregon
31. Comment #51776 by Shuggy on June 24, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Russell Blackford - very well argued. I wish more posts were as inexorable as this. Other Comments by Shuggy
32. Comment #51779 by Fouad Boussetta on June 24, 2007 at 10:43 pm
About Stephen Harper:1-Yeah, I don't really have any complaints so far about him; he seems pretty good. If he continues like that, I'll vote for him next time.
2-I don't think he's religious; he just pretends, like many Democrats in the US. He claims Seinfeld is his favorite TV show; I think that means something.
Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta
33. Comment #51782 by PaulEmecz on June 24, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Inexorable - adjective, impervious to pleas, persuasion, requests, reason; "he is adamant in his refusal to change his mind" WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.I think, Shuggy, you do Mr Blackford a disservice. I would be very disappointed if this forum represented people who were 'impervious to reason'.
It was a very competent reply, Russell.
Other Comments by PaulEmecz
34. Comment #51785 by Shuggy on June 25, 2007 at 12:00 am
PaulEmecz wrote:Inexorable - adjective, impervious to pleas, persuasion, requests, reason; "he is adamant in his refusal to change his mind" WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
I think, Shuggy, you do Mr Blackford a disservice. I would be very disappointed if this forum represented people who were 'impervious to reason'.
It was a very competent reply, Russell.
Of course I agree with your last statement.
The Shorter Oxford says "Unable to be moved or persuaded by entreaty or request (esp. for mercy), rigidly severe; immovable, relentless (lit. & fig.)." The meaning I had in mind was "unable to be resisted". Perhaps I should have qualified with "logically inexorable" but I claim a little flexibility in view of the context.
Other Comments by Shuggy
35. Comment #51805 by ferfuracious on June 25, 2007 at 4:47 am
Shuggy:I should have quoted the entire paragraph, makes more sense that way:
"The omnipotent author of The Ten Commandments presumably doesn't worry about what people think, but the bestselling author of The God Delusion is a little more sensitive. "I'd like to think my book is full of jokes," says the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, a title that now more often requires him to challenge the misunderstandings preferred by the public in these unenlightened times."
By 'not worrying about what people think', Allemang means self-consciousness, or some kind of apprehension about how people will react something, The God Delusion in Dawkins' case.
If God really didn't worry about what people think, then why is he so concerned that everybody should believe in him and no other Gods?
Other Comments by ferfuracious
36. Comment #51806 by leigh on June 25, 2007 at 4:51 am
"How can a theory about the development of life on earth provide any evidence, one way or another, relevant to the question of whether there is intelligent life outside this universe or whether such life could have been involved in causing this universe to come into existence?"Evolution does indeed provide no conclusive evidence with respect to the above questions. Although insert standard Richard Dawkins quote here regarding the consciousness raising power of evolution in explaining complexity from simpler processes.
However it provides very powerful evidence against such an intelligence being specifically involved or concerned with day to day human concerns, as well as placing ourselves firmly within the animal kingdom. Both of which are in direct contradiction to most theological texts. Evolutionary theory logically refutes a personal god, unless of course you just allow for more miracles, which the Catholic Church is all too happy to do. But it makes a deistic God incompatible with a personal god.
Other Comments by leigh
37. Comment #51820 by Vadjong on June 25, 2007 at 6:10 am
This so-called "argument" that evolutionism leads to atheism is utterly bogus and only has meaning for faithheads. Evolution does not lead to atheism. REALITY does.
And evolution happens to be a (well tested) part of our current understanding of this reality. So there.
Other Comments by Vadjong
38. Comment #51823 by PaulEmecz on June 25, 2007 at 6:31 am
What to say first... I have to take exception with Vadjong as a philosopher. I'm not even going to begin with considering what you might mean by 'REALITY', but I expect your only (indirect) contact with it is through your experiences. So I guess you're claiming that we know things through a process of induction. Can inductive reasoning lead to atheism? I'm a bit slow - please let me know how that works.
Other Comments by PaulEmecz
39. Comment #51824 by PaulEmecz on June 25, 2007 at 6:31 am
Leigh, you argue that evolution provides "very powerful evidence against such an intelligence being specifically involved or concerned with day to day human concerns". Imagine I believe aliens are responsible for crop circles. You come up with an excellent and scientifically sound theory that explains the evidence far better. There are still some 'faitheads' (quoting Vadjong) who believe that aliens are responsible for crop circles, but what can you do? So I now accept your theory on crop circles.
The thing is, however good your theory is at explaining the origins of crop circles, it doesn't give ANY evidence in favour of the proposition 'There is no intelligent life on other planets', or even the proposition that 'aliens are constantly being involved with day to day human concerns'.
Put simply, however much evidence you have to support evolution, it does not provide any, let alone 'very powerful evidence' 'against such an intelligence being specifically involved or concerned with day to day human concerns'. Evolution may undermine some of the reasons traditionally given for believing in God. It does not provide evidence of any kind that God is or isn't involved with day-to-day human concerns.
Other Comments by PaulEmecz
40. Comment #51827 by logical on June 25, 2007 at 7:16 am
Well, it is a pity that this minister´s ancestors did not live at the same time as the dinosaurs - if they did the T Rex and the velociraptors would have eaten them, and there would be no minister with a hole instead of a brain. Other Comments by logical
41. Comment #51848 by Promii on June 25, 2007 at 10:27 am
atheist_peace,I'm not certain about the rest of the Island but here in Victoria we're not much more religious than Vancouver is.
I remember seeing a poll, probably linked off this site, about percentages of creationists by province. Quebec had the least by far, followed by BC and Ontario. Manitoba and Saskatchewan actually had slightly higher numbers than Alberta.
Mind you, this is only indicative of the number of fundies, not the total number of religious believers.
Other Comments by Promii
42. Comment #51927 by D'Arcy on June 25, 2007 at 2:56 pm
To all you Canadians out there, please bear in mind that I am a Brit, although I would rather there were no nations in this world. I am rather ignorant of the machinations of Canadian politics, although I did go to school with a guy called Paul Martin, (no not your one).The question is which one is the Albertosaurus, Harper, Manning or Day? Which ever one, send him/her off to the Creation Museum so that they at least understand their own point of view better, have some fun, and maybe realise how ludicrous are the views that they hold! Enough said.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
43. Comment #52053 by leigh on June 26, 2007 at 3:42 am
PaulEmecz while there are some problems with your post I think I have to agree with you. "The thing is, however good your theory is at explaining the origins of crop circles, it doesn't give ANY evidence in favour of the proposition 'There is no intelligent life on other planets', or even the proposition that 'aliens are constantly being involved with day to day human concerns'."
This is correct but I never asserted that it would be evidence for these statements. The equivalent of what I said would be 'however good your theory is at explaining the origins of crop circles, it doesn't give ANY evidence in favour of the proposition that aliens aren't involved in the day to day occurence of crop circles.' I suppose no matter how scientifically convinced of something we are there could always be supernatural forces we cannot see creating the illusion of a natural process.
The important thing about the fact of evolution is that it is not a directional process. The emergence on any one species is an event contingent upon a number of stochastic events such as mutation, environmental change, in our case mass extinctions, volcanic eruptions and meteor strikes. We didn't have to exist. Now a god could have been involved in all of these chance events and you're right that we can't prove one wasn't, to many people this is a perfectly acceptable explanation.
But if we don't accept the occurence of miracles the only rational basis for a personal god would be one that created the universe then left it alone. Perfectly naturally galaxies, stars, elements, planets, life, humans came to be. Then this God wen't wow, those little hairless apes are pretty cool, I should stop the male ones sleeping with each other.
Other Comments by leigh
44. Comment #52061 by philosopher-animal on June 26, 2007 at 4:27 am
Shrunk, Harper was exposed by Walrus as a likely Straussian a few years ago - so he may very well believe the "noble lie" nonsense.kaiserkriss: But BC would also contain a lot of (neo?)hippies, and a huge swath of traditional NDP support, at least in Vancouver.
atheist_peace: I suspect that one finds unusual amounts of Chinese Christians in the diaspora because of the persecution, but I don't know for sure.
All Canadians tempted to vote for Harper (again?), please read the Walrus stuff ...
Other Comments by philosopher-animal
45. Comment #52124 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 8:27 am
leighI share your implied condemnation of homophobia among religious believers. I also happen to think it is unjustified on religious grounds, certainly in Christian scriptures, but I doubt that would interest you very much.
My belief in God has more to do with the increasing unlikeliness of human existence. The more I learn about the science of the universe, the more amazing it seems to me that we exist at all.
Let me ask you this - if a universe were to pop into existence, with the structure of atoms randomly determined, and all other factors just as they happened to be, what would be the odds that, given 15 billion or so years, intelligent life would evolve? From what I understand, extremely unlikely. I disagree completely with Dr Dawkins that the probability of God's existence is very, very small. If we assume that there is only one universe, the probability of an intelligent designer seems very high. So, it seems to me there is either an intelligent designer, or many, many universes.
The next question is, if the universe has a designer, what would the nature of the designer be, and would the designer be involved in any way with sustaining the universe, even interacting with the intelligent life that evolved there?
I find very few atheists who will discuss these questions with me. The usual reply is that they would prefer to believe in many universes, but I'm not sure why this is a better response.
Other Comments by PaulEmecz
46. Comment #52156 by Is on June 26, 2007 at 11:23 am
In our experience as human beings the answer to your question is 100%.Seeing as this is the only universe that we know of and we are here as we speak then simple math will tell you that the likelyhood of such a universe that we live in will produce us.
If we get into the nonsense of design we will have already skipped over countless factors in the universe that are either not in our favor for survival or almost diametrically opposed to said survival.
Seeing as the best 'logic' you could muster lead you to the fallacious conclusions that there is either a designer or many, many universes - neither of which have a shred of supporting evidence (well, their are some theories that support multiple universes but none are testable even though other parts of the theory have been tested and concluded correct) - I would suggest that you switch on the critical thinking portion of your brain and just accept what IS. We exist in this universe that is EXACTLY as we see it to the best of our ability to be precise. There is nothing hidden or unseen or separate that we cannot devise a way of experiencing. This IS the current state of humanity.
As a physicist I can concretely say that no scientifically speaking physicist would say that the universe just 'popped' into existence. This 'sexy' language that scientists have sought to use to bring weighty science to the public for the last half-century has led to its use by those who would twist and de-contextualize it to attempt to achieve their own goals. The fullest understanding of our early universe may lend itself to suggest such a 'sexy' beginning but the real position of any physicist would be to say that we have no current theory to test the circumstances of this event which occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago - or more succinctly what it was like before it was becoming like what we know (to the extent of what we know) today.
Instead of could have been focus on what IS. Quest for what IS - because only answers of what IS this place can tell us more about where we ARE.
Other Comments by Is
47. Comment #52163 by Sean on June 26, 2007 at 11:42 am
Paul, you run in to some serious problems though.1) Homosexuality is condemned as an abomination. It's only right that Christians share the view of their God.
2) You're falling back on the old idea of design since the universe is too complicated. You can't introduce God as a solution without considering where he came from since he must be even more complicated than the universe.
3) If we assume an intelligent agent, how do you know anything about it? It's no more likely to be the Christian god than any other. Looking at how inhospitable majority of the universe is, he certainly doesn't see us as being particularly important. We are a mouse living in a giant blender. Sure, it's amazing we're here but why surround us with whirring blades that can destroy us at any time?
Other Comments by Sean
48. Comment #52171 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Homosexuality is condemned as an abomination. It's only right that Christians share the view of their God.
No. As you know, the Bible was written in other languages - Hebrew, Ancient Greek etc. The translators were, many of them, homophobic. 'Abomination' is their word. I hope you won't mind me directing you to a webpage that explains this rather well (it's a Canadian site, written by a team of an agnostic, an atheist, a Buddhist, a Christian and a wiccan):
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
Other Comments by PaulEmecz
49. Comment #52176 by PaulEmecz on June 26, 2007 at 12:19 pm
If we assume an intelligent agent, how do you know anything about it?
I wasn't assuming an intelligent agent. The argument goes something like this. The existence of a universe where intelligent life can exist is very unlikely.
If the density of the universe one second after the Big Bang had been greater by one part in a thousand billion, the universe would have recollapsed after ten years. On the other hand, if the density of the universe at that time had been less by the same amount, the universe would have been essentially empty when it was about ten years old. - Stephen Hawking
Very, very precise energy levels in helium-4, beryllium-8, carbon-12, and oxygen-16 are needed for carbon to form in stars without it all turning into oxygen. Cambridge Professor of Astronomy, Martin Rees, and popular science writer John Gribbin, in Cosmic Coincidences, state:
This combination of coincidences, just right for resonance in carbon-12, just wrong in oxygen-16, is indeed remarkable.
Given how extremely unlikely this universe is, it is more likely that there are billions of other universes, or that the structure of the universe, its rules etc, are the product of intelligent design.
So, we aren't assuming an intelligent designer, but by looking at the design (if we reject the billions of universes alternative), why shouldn't we be able to 'know the mind of God'?
If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principles by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we would know the mind of God. - Stephen Hawking
Other Comments by PaulEmecz
50. Comment #52239 by Merowe on June 26, 2007 at 2:43 pm
PaulEmecz, your arguments are interesting enough, but have already been comprehensively addressed by Mr.Dawkins, perhaps you should watch his lectures to the Royal Society from some years ago.He makes the point, for example, noting historical references to the same argument, that by displacing explanation for the universe in which we find ourselves to some intelligent designer we simply defer the answer. Who designed the designer? I'm reminded of another cosmology - Hindu? - in which the earth is supported by a turtle which stands on the back of another turtle, which stands on the back of... It is no answer, but rather a barrier across the road to rational inquiry, an excuse for sloppy intellection. No point in analyzing any further, its beyond us, a matter of God's work!
Mr.Dawkins very eloquently describes, without violating common sense or the laws of physics, how sophisticated structures self-select from simpler precursors.
You suggest the unlikeliness of the universe. What of it. Do you doubt that it exists? Presumably not. How does this apparent unlikeliness justify recourse to metaphysics? The one does not follow from the other, logically.
Do you question evolution itself? Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? If not, then you must concede a slow but inevitable process whereby life becomes more complex over time rather than the opposite, and this process is well described.
There is no need for an intelligent designer, it is redundant. And you must know enough about science that there is a requirement, perhaps aesthetic, for simplicity; the simplest model survives by dint of economy, grace and utility. In terms of explanations of the universe science has rendered God irrelevant. He/she may have other roles to play, with this I do not quarrel.
Other Comments by Merowe
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #51698 by Linda on June 24, 2007 at 7:01 am
Stockwell Day in a weird twist of politics could have become the Prime Minister of Canada but he did beat peer Preston Manning, a Christian minister, in a leadership campaign. What a scary thought that a guy who thinks that the Flintstones is a true story could join the socially dangerous crowd of religious fundamentalists that hold the top jobs in too many nations. The current PM, Stephen Harper, also has an Alberta mindset that is Texas-Lite and is eager to make the gods co-prime ministers too. Freedom from religion is an uphill battle everywhere even in lovely, peaceful Canada.Thanks to the brilliant political satirists from the TV show 'This Hour has 22 Minutes' and a rather clever suggestion that Stockwell change his name to Doris Day he was bumped from leadership but still holds a cabinet post:
"The CBC television show, "This Hour has 22 Minutes" now has more than enough signatures for its petition campaign to have Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day change his name to Doris Day.
The show is using the Alliance referendum formula, that would allow a national vote on any issue, if three per cent of the electorate, or about 350,000 people, signed a petition."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/11/17/bc_dorisday001116.html
Other Comments by Linda