[kj] (OT) The Religion of Peace, Love and Understanding

[phil]

It seems to me, as is often the case when people discuss Richard
Dawkins, that he is being either misunderstood or misquoted. Dawkins
doesnt claim to be 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with him
wrong. Nor does he claim to be 100% convinced as to the non-existence
of god. The whole basis of the God Delusion is that, based on the
available evidence, god is very improbable. 

I remember a passage in the book where he presents a 7 point scale of
belief, where 1 is absolute total belief that god exists and 7 is the
opposite, total atheism. Dawkins places himself at number 6 - that he
thinks god is very improbable but cannot, of course, know for certain.

I read The Blind Watchmaker recently, one of the most inspiring books
Ive ever read.

On Fri, 7 May 2010 18:36:11 +0000 (GMT), you wrote:


>Fine. But I'm not conducting a science vs religion debate, and I'm not convinced why a discussion about Dawkins' beliefs has to become one about science against religion- especially when I haven't described my views on science, and have already stated my opposition to religion.

> 

>For the record,  I'm not disputing his right to write the book. I don't care if he publishes his toenail clippings.

> 

>Okay. Here it is. I don't like people who are absolutely convinced they're right and everyone else is wrong. It's a dangerous position.

> 

>And no, your belief that God is about as logical as the Tooth Fairy doesn't instantly make it a fact. You don't know, I don't know, and Dawkins doesn't know.

> 

>Jim.

>

>--- On Fri, 7/5/10, Brendan <bq at soundgardener.co.nz> wrote:

>

>

>A prominent scientist attacking the existence of god based on the lack of

>evidence means that the argument is categorically a science vs religion

>rebate.

>

>I think you need to make a point, attack something he's said specifically

>(rather than the way he's said it), because I'm not really getting any

>solid reason you're against his right to write that book.

>

>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The god argument has as

>much proof as the Tooth Fairy argument. Writing a book to go into that in

>depth doesn't make someone a fanatic.

>

>

>

>

>