He sees religion as a wall that blocks knowledge and understanding, to him that is evil. How is that argument flawed?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do atheists think that evolution theory proves that there is no God?
- Thread starter Bishadi
- Start date
He sees religion as a wall that blocks knowledge and understanding, to him that is evil. How is that argument flawed?
Yerda
Veteran Member
Because the premise is unsubstantiated.
I don't believe Dawkins has actually called religion "the root of all evil", however. He presented a show called The Root of all Evil?, although it is alleged he contested the title.
For one thing, it does not seem to be universally true that religion blocks learning and understanding. If that were the case, if religion always blocked learning and understanding, there would be no Christians who accepted evolution or were evolutionary biologists. But there are Christians who accept evolution and are evolutionary biologists. So, it cannot be universally true that religion blocks learning and understanding. Something more must be going on than simply that religion blocks learning and understanding.
I admire Dawkins and think he's a good man, a great communicator, and a sound scientist -- but I also think his criticisms of religion are in some cases too crude and improperly generalized. They need to be qualified and refined, IMHO.
Last edited:
I've seen videos of Dawkins saying the title, The Root of All Evil?, was not his choosing and that he contested it.
rocketman
Out there...
I know a few.
rocketman
Out there...
Seeing as I brought Dawkins into this thread can I just say that I'm not asserting (in this thread anyway) that he is flawed or otherwise, but rather that some of his language is interesting when held up next to the OP. Eg: "...although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Provine was much more direct though, "...modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear, and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods,..." The latter especially is being quite unscientific.
Last edited:
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
The science of evolution is quite incompatible with the existence of an intervening creator god, which Dawkins, HItchens, and other writers on atheism go at great lengths to talk about.
No, it is not.
I have to quibble. At the most fundamental level, Newton's laws are wrong in that they make assumptions about the universe that aren't true (e.g. that relativity does not exist). The thing is that in most day-to-day situations, the difference between a prediction based on Newton's "wrong" formulae is so close to the actual answer that for all practical purposes, it's close enough.
People "cling" to natural selection because it's well-supported by evidence and well understood. When you know this, not "clinging" to natural selection would amount to lying, which most decent people usually have a problem with.
And what's wrong with saying that? The main competing hypothesis for the origin of life on Earth before evolution was special creation: "God did it". Evolution introduced the idea that explanations for the history of God that did not explicitly invoke God could be acceptable.
Yes, that's unscientific.
The closest I've seen that can be considered scientific at all is Gould's assessment that a study of the history of evolution indicates that much of the end result we see now came down to chance, which is evidence (but not proof) that we humans specifically were not deliberately designed.
Took the words out of my mouth.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Ugh, let's not start the great Dawkins debate again.
Embrace, there's a recent thread titled Dawkins! that you might want to review. Or not, your call.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Ah, I was hoping you'd show up. I've asked you many times to support similar assertions, and you never have. Please support this one. Or stop spouting such nonsense.
Bishadi
Active Member
since knowledge evolves; it does not matter if proof is offered as to how life exists.
the God of theology has never been proven real in the first place
so the proof is not of knowledge to remove or reduce the concept of God but to vindicate the existence we live within; identifying God
just as Einstein offered a mathematical idea of E=mc2..... the very math that perfects the combination of the sciences in which all mass, all energy and all time; the trinity are combined; then, as promised, the NAME OF GOD is known.
hasn't anyone ever wondered what the big deal has been throughout the ages as to knowing the name of God?
Well now you know what to look for.
The evolution of knowledge will and was promised to 'reveal' the truth.
the God of theology has never been proven real in the first place
so the proof is not of knowledge to remove or reduce the concept of God but to vindicate the existence we live within; identifying God
just as Einstein offered a mathematical idea of E=mc2..... the very math that perfects the combination of the sciences in which all mass, all energy and all time; the trinity are combined; then, as promised, the NAME OF GOD is known.
hasn't anyone ever wondered what the big deal has been throughout the ages as to knowing the name of God?
Well now you know what to look for.
The evolution of knowledge will and was promised to 'reveal' the truth.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
Simple, read the books.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
lol, or in plain English "I am too lazy to support my accusations, so here is a cheap cop out".
I have read The God Delusion, The End of Faith, God is Not Great and Breaking the Spell. And there are no arguments in any of them that prove the statement you have made. At best you can show that Dawkins, Hitchens, and other writers on atheism agree with your position, but that is not evidence. You still have not supported your position.
I might suggest you read Kenneth Millers Finding Darwin'sGod
rocketman
Out there...
Nothing wrong with Dawkins saying that, but is it scientific? If 'God' is wholly dependent on young-earth dogma then maybe it is. Which leads to me to your second sentence, and you know, before evolution there was old-earth geology, so evolution was not the beginning of this. In fact, it was very popular before Darwin to believe in an old earth and the bible, but with the advent of evolution it became popular to denigrate bible believers as 'flat earthers' and so partly gave rise to the very modern reaction we now know as 'creationism', especially the young earth kind. Like it or not, atheists early enthusiasm about evolution partly helped create the conflict, unlike the earlier old-earth geologists who weren't so militant. Bottom line? Many atheists do think that evolution disproves God (although not necessarily in a scientific way) and have long been keen to mention evolution and dieties in the same breath (or book chapter). This kind of thing is a comfort to a great many people who don't want religion to be true, just as religion is a comfort to many who don't want death to be the end etc.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this sentence. Are you talking about theories regarding the evolution of religion?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Well, a cheap cop-out is better than his usual tactic of just running away.lol, or in plain English "I am too lazy to support my accusations, so here is a cheap cop out".