how some of you misunderstand Dawkins

[_guy sajer]

Dawkins also wanted to point out in his last book the danger of imposing a set of religious beliefs on children, and raise consciousness of the fact that they aren't Mormon children, muslim children, or catholic children; they are children of Mormon, muslim, or catholic parents.

Yes, that is right. However, Dawkins perhaps misunderstood the socialization process that all children experience. And although it may be true that children receive there religious belief from parents in the main, they also receive other behavioral patterns from children. And if Dawkins has children, it can be assured that he has given them his own socialization process. A person cannot live in a social void without experiencing some form of belief system from others.

I agree. Here's one area in which I part company with Dawkins. I think he goes overboard on the "religion is child abuse" argument. Parents have (with perhaps some exceptions) a perfectly legitimate right to pass their beliefs and values down to their children. Socialization is, IMHO, one of the primary roles of parents.

I do not believe, however, that parents have an equally legitimate right to demand or expect their children to adopt their beliefs and values. I firmly believe that people possess an inherent right (to the extent possible) to determine their own beliefs and values and to follow their own path in life, regardless of others' exectations.

[_wenglund]

I'll re-ask this question since it went unanswered the first go-around:

Yes, you're right. There ought to be another one.

5. There is plenty of evidence showing that believing in things for which there is no evidence undermines one's critical and rational thinking faculties and proves, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society.

What studies does Dawkins supposedly site in support of this assertion?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_guy sajer]

I'll re-ask this question since it went unanswered the first go-around:

Yes, you're right. There ought to be another one.

5. There is plenty of evidence showing that believing in things for which there is no evidence undermines one's critical and rational thinking faculties and proves, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society.

What studies does Dawkins supposedly site in support of this assertion?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That strikes me as the null hypothesis. What we should be looking for is studies demonstrating that it doesn't undermine one's critical and rational thinking facilities.

I wonder, would insertion of religious dogma into mainstream science curricula be determinental to society?

Do we really need a study to demonstrate this before we start to worry about it?

[_Jason Bourne]

The sort of evidence that will be in accord with the rules of logic and science.* This is the only way human beings can eliminate - or at least control - all the errors in thinking to which we are naturally prey.

Like Dawkins, I believe everything in the universe can be explained without the existence of a godbeing, so the addition of a godbeing is an necessary, extraordinary, complication. So the type of evidence I want will not only be in accord with logic and science, but will be inexplicable by anything other than the godbeing.

But many find the scientific method lacking and see a higher designer of the world, life and Universe. So they believe there is evidence and that it meets a reasonable level. Why are they wrong?

What we have now is the same sort of evidence that people offer for things like alien abductions. All anecdotal - no hard evidence, despite the many opportunities these people would have to obtain hard evidence.

Not so. The evidence of creation is not anecdotal.

[_Jason Bourne]

Again the believer finds much evidence for God in many things. What qualifies as evidence really is the question.

That's a very good question. The issue does indeed turn on this question.

I'd say "objectively verifiable" evidence qualifies.

Note, witness of the spirit does not qualify.

I agree.Personal witnesses are just that. Personal. It may confirm to the individual their own faith and belief but it is subjective and is not evidence that can be used to prove God to another.

I'm interested in whatever objectively verifiable evidence you or anyone else can muster for God's existence.

in my opinion creation, the world, life, the universe is the best evidence. Science is good at explaining so much of this but not what is behind it all. Chance? Not good enough for me. I see a creator behind it. He, it whatever, may have used evolution to do it but it is still powered by more then chance. When I doubt God the most I still see a God in the world we live in.

[_Gadianton]

But many find the scientific method lacking and see a higher designer of the world, life and Universe. So they believe there is evidence and that it meets a reasonable level. Why are they wrong?

and what kinds of methods, superior to the "scientific method" do these 'many' use?

[_Jason Bourne]

But many find the scientific method lacking and see a higher designer of the world, life and Universe. So they believe there is evidence and that it meets a reasonable level. Why are they wrong?

and what kinds of methods, superior to the "scientific method" do these 'many' use?

Perhaps it is better said that while science provides much about how it does not answer why and leaves it all to chance. Many think that a creation evidences more then just chance.

[_Tarski]

If God truly does exist, then his existence is an external, objective reality. He exists whether or not I believe he exists. If, in addition, that God also intervenes in mankind, that is another external, objective reality.

That is what Dawkins is talking about, not subjective states such as appreciation of beauty and love. Coggins diverted the conversation to subjective states for a reason, and that reason is that Dawkins is correct, and the only way Coggins can challenge it is to attempt to change the topic and hope no one notices

This diversionary change of subject to that of love and sunsets is so old and pointless. The whole world, atheist, Buddhist, and catholic can agree that such things exist in the appropriate (often subjective) sense. But religion is not about this at all. Religion makes claims about the objective world--about angels, special books, special authorities, devils, demons, heavens and hells and above all about gods.
As long as the topics is what things exists in fact and what rules do thy follow, then science is center stage. Since objective knowledge is of paramount importance to making good decisions, science has indeed pulled us out of a prior more dark time into a brighter time.
This either elludes Coggins and Ray or they are purposefully obfuscating.

by the way, art, beauty, love and puppies dogs don't need religion.

[_Gadianton]

But many find the scientific method lacking and see a higher designer of the world, life and Universe. So they believe there is evidence and that it meets a reasonable level. Why are they wrong?

and what kinds of methods, superior to the "scientific method" do these 'many' use?

Perhaps it is better said that while science provides much about how it does not answer why and leaves it all to chance. Many think that a creation evidences more then just chance.

Question for you: Why did the virgin mary's face appear in the toasted cheese sandwich?

[_wenglund]

I'll re-ask this question since it went unanswered the first go-around:

Yes, you're right. There ought to be another one.

5. There is plenty of evidence showing that believing in things for which there is no evidence undermines one's critical and rational thinking faculties and proves, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society.

What studies does Dawkins supposedly site in support of this assertion?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That strikes me as the null hypothesis. What we should be looking for is studies demonstrating that it doesn't undermine one's critical and rational thinking facilities.

What you just suggested strikes me more as the "null hypothesis" (the word "doesn't" being the biggest clue). Either way, I am interested in reading the so-called "plenty of evidence" for Dawkins alleged main point #5 above.

I wonder, would insertion of religious dogma into mainstream science curricula be determinental to society?

Do we really need a study to demonstrate this before we start to worry about it?

I think that depends upon which "dogma" is being inserted (As a Special Ed instructor in the public school system, I have incorporated religious precepts "such as the Golden Rule" into my behavioral rules, to the demonstrable benefit of all parties, and I also believe the religiously motivated interjection of the notion of sexual abstinence taught to teens during health sciences, has had a positive social effect) where in the curricula and/or how closed one's mind is to subject. ;-)

What pre-study worries do you have?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-