Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Are you saying he has been giving equal time to objections to religion?

I am saying he has familiarity with the objections to religion.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

I studied more than science. There were required courses in philosophy, literature, art, political science, etc. The subject never came up in any of these either. If the notion were widespread I would think it would come up at least once.

Philosophy and philosophies of life are very widespread.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Is Walsh?

I don't know, I am not familiar with his curriculum vitae. I do know Dawkins is considered a purveyor of pseudoscience per his peers.

(see Dawkins's Contributions as a Scientist Are Already Past Their Sell-By Date,
Says Nature Reviewer by David Klinghoffer September 10, 2015 12:33, Evolution News and Views. Dawkins's Contributions as a Scientist Are Already Past Their Sell-By Date, Says Nature Reviewer by David Klinghoffer September 10, 2015 12:33, Evolution News and Views

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I don't know, I am not familiar with his curriculum vitae. I do know Dawkins is considered a purveyor of pseudoscience per his peers.

(see Dawkins's Contributions as a Scientist Are Already Past Their Sell-By Date,
Says Nature Reviewer by David Klinghoffer September 10, 2015 12:33, Evolution News and Views. Dawkins's Contributions as a Scientist Are Already Past Their Sell-By Date, Says Nature Reviewer by David Klinghoffer September 10, 2015 12:33, Evolution News and Views

Really? Klinghoffer works for the anti-evolution, pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute. Intelligent design is pseudoscience. Klinghoffer and others at the Discovery Institute can hardly be considered Dawkins' peers.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Really? Klinghoffer works for the anti-evolution, pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute. Intelligent design is pseudoscience. Klinghoffer and others at the Discovery Institute can hardly be considered Dawkins' peers.

Klinghoffer is referring to Nathaniel Comfort's peer reviewed article in the prestigious peer reviewed journal Nature. Comfort's article passes your oft-requested peer review test.

There are many scientists, that call Dawkins' intellectual weight into question. I am not going to list everyone of them, but you can count renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci among them.

Also Dawkins does not even fair too well among atheist philosophers too.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Klinghoffer is referring to Nathaniel Comfort's peer reviewed article in the prestigious peer reviewed journal Nature. Comfort's article passes your oft-requested peer review test.

There are many scientists, that call Dawkins' intellectual weight into question. I am not going to list everyone of them, but you can count renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci among them.

Would Comfort, Orr, Wilson and Pigliucci agree with dnglfnk's assertion that "DNA can fall under the description of 'goal directed'..." For that matter, avoiding ad hominem arguments and appeals to authority, can dnglfnk or you support that claim? For that matter, just what does dnglfnk mean when he makes that claim. Evolution is certainly not goal directed.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Also Dawkins does not even fair too well among atheist philosophers too.

Name one.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

But the definition is of "horizontal", not "natural", "earthly" or "worldly".

But the individuals are of this realm (world), are they not?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

When we help others are we not acting in their interests, e.g., volunteering for Habitat For Humanity. Is God not glorified when we help others? If not, then what is the lesson of The Good Samaritan?

God is glorified only when we do all things out of our love for HIM! This includes even loving our neighbor, which is the point to the parable.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But the individuals are of this realm (world), are they not?

So?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

God is glorified only when we do all things out of our love for HIM! This includes even loving our neighbor, which is the point to the parable.

God's not a nice guy, is he? Sort of a celestial Adolph Hitler.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Would Comfort, Orr, Wilson and Pigliucci agree with dnglfnk's assertion that "DNA can fall under the description of 'goal directed'..." For that matter, avoiding ad hominem arguments and appeals to authority, can dnglfnk or you support that claim? For that matter, just what does dnglfnk mean when he makes that claim. Evolution is certainly not goal directed.

Name one.

You have to ask dnglfnk. I only spoke to Dawkins' reputation among his peers regarding the quality of Dawkins' work. Gee, I didn't know peer review of scientific work qualifies as an ad hominem attack.

Michael Ruse.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Michael Ruse.

From what I can determine about Dr. Ruse I don't think he would agree that DNA is goal directed.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I only spoke to Dawkins' reputation among his peers regarding the quality of Dawkins' work.

But you made no argument as to the validity of his work.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Gee, I didn't know peer review of scientific work qualifies as an ad hominem attack.

It does not. However, you were not reviewing Dr. Dawkins scientific work, and unless you are a biologist you are not one of his peers. What you posted was an ad hominem argument.

I noticed that Jerry Coyne co-authored an opus with one of the scientists you cited. Coyne certainly would not agree that DNA is goal directed. If you accept Coyne's work I will gladly substitute Coyne for Dawkins.

Dawkins has advanced some ideas that are controversial among the scientific community. It is not surprising that some scientists disagree with him.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Actor

God's not a nice guy, is he? Sort of a celestial Adolph Hitler.

That became apparent when we (the human species) were made, according to some sources, in His image. The dogmatic and mechanical structure of Western religion, IMHO, makes a very strong case for the origin of God and how to worship Him being from human sources, and not the other way around. In other words, the Bible being written by six smart Jews makes more sense than being the Holy Word of God handed down to imperfect humans via a story that is difficult for even a child to believe. (at least it was for me)

And to follow, the statement "God is glorified only when we do all things out of our love for HIM!" doesn't make any sense unless a human-centric motivation is considered (again, IMHO). Why does God require constant glorification? Seems odd.

Actor, I also share your view in the "objections to materialism" being a non-starter, as I never encountered that in my education either. When a Believer starts cloaking their views behind terms that are intended to confuse or obfuscate a logical train of thought, the alarm bells go off. Just call it what it is - "a leap of faith". It's okay, Believers are in the majority, and if a supernatural explanation or experience is your personal view, it doesn't need any justification beyond that. Just don't try to make it more intellectual than it is, or try to prove God exists (or doesn't) in a Court of Law.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

That became apparent when we (the human species) were made, according to some sources, in His image. The dogmatic and mechanical structure of Western religion, IMHO, makes a very strong case for the origin of God and how to worship Him being from human sources, and not the other way around. In other words, the Bible being written by six smart Jews makes more sense than being the Holy Word of God handed down to imperfect humans via a story that is difficult for even a child to believe. (at least it was for me)

And to follow, the statement "God is glorified only when we do all things out of our love for HIM!" doesn't make any sense unless a human-centric motivation is considered (again, IMHO). Why does God require constant glorification? Seems odd.

Actor, I also share your view in the "objections to materialism" being a non-starter, as I never encountered that in my education either. When a Believer starts cloaking their views behind terms that are intended to confuse or obfuscate a logical train of thought, the alarm bells go off. Just call it what it is - "a leap of faith". It's okay, Believers are in the majority, and if a supernatural explanation or experience is your personal view, it doesn't need any justification beyond that. Just don't try to make it more intellectual than it is, or try to prove God exists (or doesn't) in a Court of Law.

This sums it up pretty-well, IMO...and it represents my own thoughts on this matter as well. A person's "faith" (or lack thereof) is a personal matter based on his own interpretive skills...and it should in no way be imposed upon someone else. I have no problem with people disagreeing or questioning me about my religious beliefs...it's when they attempt to "convert me" by showing me the "error of my ways" that the problems begin. And this "converting" business is distinctly an Abrahamic-religion characteristic, IMO...the insinuation always being that the Christian or the Muslim is somehow seeing something that the other person can't realize on his own.

In my impetuous youth...I spent some time listening to lectures in a Chinese-Zen (Chan) center. So impressed was I with the "wisdom" shown by the resident abbot there, that I asked to be indoctrinated into his religion. He politely corrected me by telling me that there was great spiritual advancement to be made without taking his words or his religion as "gospel". "Many roads lead to the mountain-top"...he reminded me.

Yes, "teach the masses"...if you must. But don't force-feed your dogma down another's throat...or ridicule the religious beliefs of others. A teacher needs to know when to talk...and when to shut-up.