Pollux
Member
And skepticism?
Not mutually exclusive.
And skepticism?
I agree with this fully.Critical thinking and a belief in God aren't mutually exclusive, despite what fundamentalists and evangelicals would have you believe.
That can still be a problem, but I've found it to be a lot more rare.
The big problem is with how innocuous the a- prefix is. When someone hears that you are something, they instantly group you together with others who claim they are the same thing and proceed to project certain values onto you.
However, when someone hears that you are not something, such as "Not a believer", their reaction is to simply separate you from the believers, rather than to connect you with the non-believers. I find this much more acceptable.
i admittedly did not read the god delusion, but - is this true? i thought Dawkins took a hard atheist stance on there being no gods. anecdotally, the fans i know of him all do.
OK . . . then that Merriam-Webster dictionary listing got it wrong.
I think we can all agree that Richard Dawkins is one of the most outspoken "Atheists" out there. But by his own words in "The God Delusion", he does NOT claim that no god exists. He doesn't believe in a god and he has a strong suspicion that there is no god, but even the most famous atheist in the world will not say "I believe no god exists."
So if the most famous "atheist" doesn't fit the definition, clearly their definition is wrong.
Critical thinking and a belief in God aren't mutually exclusive, despite what fundamentalists and evangelicals would have you believe.
Is there not an important (and consensus) distinction between an 'agnostic' and an 'atheist'? Is there any use in him identifying as an "agnostic atheist" but to confuse 95% of his audience?And that is EXACTLY why people want NDT to admit he is an atheist. If the only people to 'come out' as atheists are the brash outspoken politically active ones then that is the FALSE image that gets perpetuated. That is like thinking all gay people are ACT-UP activists if those are the only gay people you've ever heard of.
i admittedly did not read the god delusion, but - is this true? i thought Dawkins took a hard atheist stance on there being no gods. anecdotally, the fans i know of him all do.
Dawkins and Hitchens are anti-theists.wikipedia said:Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is dangerous or destructive. One example of this view is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."
The image you posted has invalidated everything you said. Back to reddit with you.
As an atheist, I don't look down, pity, or ridicule religious people, unless they become extremist about their belief. I just accept that their way of seeing the world is different from mine, no matter how I think it is wrong. As for educating younger generations, I will just start with keeping creationism out of school.
I would say they tend to be mutually exclusive. At least, when it comes to that specific topic.
They may very well be vastly more intelligent and amazing critical thinkers in any other area (often enough, when it comes to every *other* god definition), but I've noticed that even the most "intelligent" theologians fall back to woefully bad reasoning when it comes to the specific god they happen to believe in.
Of course, that would make sense, since the initial acquisition of god belief usually has very little to do with "reason" in the first place.
Dawkins believes there is no god. Certainty and belief are not the same thing. Even to that end, he rates himself as 6.9/7 certain that there is no god. He is not a "50-50 likely or unlikely" agnostic, in his own words.
B-but I got it from GAF...
Careful. Brilliant men like Francis Collins have religious belief. I probably should read his book on his reasoning for holding such a belief.
Nobody gets argued all the way into becoming a believer on the sheer basis of logic and reason. That requires a leap of faith. And that leap of faith seemed very scary to me. After I had struggled with this for a couple of years, I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains on a beautiful fall afternoon. I turned the corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it — also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me. And it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass in the shadow of the Cascades, I fell on my knees and accepted this truth — that God is God, that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to that belief.
Dawkins believes there is no god. Certainty and belief are not the same thing. Even to that end, he rates himself as 6.9/7 certain that there is no god.
So he isnt completely certain. He just find it highly unlikely.
Like I mentioned, when it comes to that specific topic. Francis Collins was convinced of Christianity because he saw a frozen waterfall one day. Yeah.
He may be an awesome scientist in his day to day work, but he clearly didn't have his "critical thinking" hat on that day.
Like I mentioned, when it comes to that specific topic. Francis Collins was convinced of Christianity because he saw a frozen waterfall one day. Yeah.
Nobody gets argued all the way into becoming a believer on the sheer basis of logic and reason. That requires a leap of faith. And that leap of faith seemed very scary to me. After I had struggled with this for a couple of years, I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains on a beautiful fall afternoon. I turned the corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it — also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me. And it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass in the shadow of the Cascades, I fell on my knees and accepted this truth — that God is God, that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to that belief.
He may be an awesome scientist in his day to day work, but he clearly didn't have his "critical thinking" hat on that day.
But that isn't the meaning of the base term the man added an a prefix to when he coined the term agnostic. He wasn't referring to a lack of ancient religious beliefs, but a lack of knowledge.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. To my great satisfaction, the term took; and when the Spectator had stood godfather to it, any suspicion in the minds of respectable people, that a knowledge of its parentage might have awakened was, of course, completely lulled.
I am very well aware, as I suppose most thoughtful people are in these times, that the process of breaking away from old beliefs is extremely unpleasant; and I am much disposed to think that the encouragement, the consolation, and the peace afforded to earnest believers in even the worst forms of Christianity are of great practical advantage to them. What deductions must be made from this gain on the score of the harm done to the citizen by the ascetic other-worldliness of logical Christianity; to the ruler, by the hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness of sectarian bigotry; to the legislator, by the spirit of exclusiveness and domination of those that count themselves pillars of orthodoxy; to the philosopher, by the restraints on the freedom of learning and teaching which every Church exercises, when it is strong enough; to the conscientious soul, by the introspective hunting after sins of the mint and cummin type, the fear of theological error, and the overpowering terror of possible damnation, which have accompanied the Churches like their shadow, I need not now consider; but they are assuredly not small. If agnostics lose heavily on the one side, they gain a good deal on the other. People who talk about the comforts of belief appear to forget its discomforts; they ignore the fact that the Christianity of the Churches is something more than faith in the ideal personality of Jesus, which they create for themselves, plus so much as can be carried into practice, without disorganising civil society, of the maxims of the Sermon on the Mount. Trip in morals or in doctrine (especially in doctrine), without due repentance or retractation, or fail to get properly baptized before you die, and a plébiscite of the Christians of Europe, if they were true to their creeds, would affirm your everlasting damnation by an immense majority.
Still speaking for myself, I add, that though Agnosticism is not, and cannot be, a creed, except in so far as its general principle is concerned; yet that the application of that principle results in [311] the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty. And, in so far as these ecclesiastical persons can be justified in their old-established custom (which many nowadays think more honoured in the breach than the observance) of using opprobrious names to those who differ from them, I fully admit their right to call me and those who think with me "Infidels"; all I have ventured to urge is that they must not expect us to speak of ourselves by that title.
Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word "Agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence; and it has been a source of some amusement to me to watch the gradual acceptance of the term and its correlate, "Agnosticism" (I think the Spectator first adopted and popularised both), until now Agnostics are assuming the position of a recognised sect, and Agnosticism is honoured by especial obloquy on the part of the orthodox. Thus it will be seen that I have a sort of patent right in "Agnostic" (it is my trade mark); and I am entitled to say that I can state authentically what was originally meant by Agnosticism. What other people may understand by it, by this time, I do not know. If a General Council of the Church Agnostic were held, very likely I should be condemned as a heretic. But I speak only for myself in endeavoring to answer these questions.
1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.
2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.
3. I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions. On trial of any so-called miracle the verdict of science is "Not proven." But true Agnosticism will not forget that [6] existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in nature are more stupendous miracles than any recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond the intelligible universe, which "are not dreamt of in our philosophy." The theological "gnosis" would have us believe that the world is a conjuror's house; the anti-theological "gnosis" talks as if it were a "dirt-pie" made by the two blind children, Law and Force. Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena.
Anything you cannot know for certain is a belief. You can believe there is a God or you can believe there is no God. Not believing in God is not an absence of belief, it is a different belief.
I can know the world is round(ish) because that can be measured. You cannot measure the lack of a deity, so although you may be certain that there is no God, you are only certain in your belief that there is no God.
So anecdote time: I have had similar "religious experiences".
If you are not certain then you don't believe something. It is a binary concept.
That is the whole point here . . . atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Not a belief that no god exists.
Just because he has a high degree probabalistic view on his lack of belief you can't just round it up to 7 for him because that is the way YOU want to pigeonhole him.
Do they? Or is that an assumption?
Like I mentioned, when it comes to that specific topic. Francis Collins was convinced of Christianity because he saw a frozen waterfall one day. Yeah.
He may be an awesome scientist in his day to day work, but he clearly didn't have his "critical thinking" hat on the day a beautiful nature sighting caused him to convert to Christianity.
I did really like what he said about the radical theists and the radical atheists, though. Both are wrong and we shouldn't let them be representative of theists and atheists.Like I mentioned, when it comes to that specific topic. Francis Collins was convinced of Christianity because he saw a frozen waterfall one day. Yeah.
He may be an awesome scientist in his day to day work, but he clearly didn't have his "critical thinking" hat on the day a beautiful nature sighting caused him to convert to Christianity.
No . . . he does not 'believe' there is no god. He strongly doubts the existence of a god because he has seen mountains of evidence that contradicts religious teachings. To believe there is no god would require that 'faith' you speak of which he clearly does not have and thus leaves it at 6.9 out of 7 and not 7.Yes, or put another way, he believes there is no god. Leaving open the possibility he is wrong doesn't change that. Otherwise, you might as well just start calling most churchgoers atheist. That's why they have faith
I had a religious experience with a pinball machine when I was on acid. I had become one with the machine. But it really didn't mean anything.
No . . . he does not 'believe' there is no god. He strongly doubts the existence of a god because he has seen mountains of evidence that contradicts religious teachings. To believe there is no god would require that 'faith' you speak of which he clearly does not have and thus leaves it at 6.9 out of 7 and not 7.
This seems to happen from time to time when a scientist attempts to wade into philosophical terrain and gets mud all over their shoes. As to the issue of agnosticism vs. atheism, weak vs. strong and the like, all assume too much. Ignosticism & Theological noncognitivism is where it's at...
False
As demonstrated, this is extremely debatable.
I'm not rounding. Your view that belief requires certainty lacks any basis. If he were certain, he would not need to believe. He would know. That's his point. He does not claim to know that there is no god. He does profess a belief that there is no god
Really?
be·lieve (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr.
1. To accept as true or real:
True is a pretty simple word. And it does not mean 95% true.
You can't 'know' in this case because it is impossible to disprove! Duh. It is only possible to 'believe' on that 7 out of 7.
7 on the scale is "I know god does not exist" knowledge and belief are not the same thing. He operates under the assumption that there is no god (because he thinks there is an extremely small likelihood one exists). That is a belief
You skipped the word accept
You just keep trying to round up 6.9 to 7 as much as you can.
You want to assign faith to him but he doesn't have it as much as you want to shove it down his throat.
Your "know" bit fell apart because you Russell's teapot, Sagan's invisible dragon, etc.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4][5]
For the record, Dawkins considers himself to be an agnostic.
Dawkins said:I believe that when you talk about agnosticism, it is very important to make a distinction between 'I don't know whether x is true or not therefore it is 50-50 likely or unlikely' and that is the kind of agnostic which I definitely am not.
For the record, Dawkins considers himself to be an agnostic.
I see it as an intellectually necessary stance. He probably has avoided promoting it since he wants to keep the appearance of being strongly against the idea that God exists. Sure enough the moment he said it publicly, Christian sites picked it up and ran with it as if he had been cast with some sudden doubt.
Well you are just making it into a stupid word game then. You could just as easily say that Richard Dawkins believes god exists because if he "believes" there is a 10^-99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 probability of that being true then he believes in god. Dawkins believes in god!I'm not rounding, those are his words. 7 means "I know there is no god". I'm not suggesting he is a 7. You seem to be having trouble with the word belief. I can accept something as true (the definition of belief) with any degree of certainty. It's an assumption. Knowledge is a justified belief. I'm not suggesting that he knows there is no god, nobody how many times you say I am.
This seems to happen from time to time when a scientist attempts to wade into philosophical terrain and gets mud all over their shoes. As to the issue of agnosticism vs. atheism, weak vs. strong and the like, all assume too much. Ignosticism & Theological noncognitivism is where it's at...
Well you are just making it into a stupid word game then. You could just as easily say that Richard Dawkins believes god exists because if he "believes" there is a 10^-99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 probability of that being true then he believes in god. Dawkins believes in god!
I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
BTW, I never said you suggested he knows there is no god. I told you that it is impossible to know such a thing so how could I suggest that? Duh. 7/7 = Believes no god exists.
Did you bother to watch the video?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...m-6.9-out-7-sure-that-God-does-not-exist.html
Late reply: Who? There are fellas like Krauss, Rees, Greene, Kaku and Brian Cox but only one comes even close to Neil when we are talking about public speaking and that's Brian Cox. I admit that Neil is bit melodramatic(not sure if that's the word i'm looking) for my taste but he is still far the best in game. Also Brian's mop hair bugs the shit out of me. I guess Michio Kaku is also ok but him talking about Fukushima was just awful. Neil isn't very thought-provoking popular-science writer but out in public he is the numero uno at this point.I'm not knocking him, I just wish people would start with him, and expand themselves and realize there are plenty of great guys in the Physics community like him.
Can we agree that Dawkins is a douchebag?