This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Dawkins warns of human extinction

Dawkins warns of human extinction - Comments

Szymanowski's Avatar Comment 1 by Szymanowski

"Mr Dawkins is the devil's speaker..."


Not "speaker" - CHAPLAIN!

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:15:00 UTC | #147302

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 2 by Steve Zara

I can't agree that we could be heading for extinction. It is hard to think of any other species of "higher" animal that is so versatile, living everywhere from the deserts to the arctic. It is also very hard to imagine some man-made disaster that would reduce the entire human population down to below the few hundred level that might mean extinction. A recent TV documentary (I forget which channel) discussed how we would survive even something as terrible as a dinosaur-killer asteroid impact. There was little doubt we could.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:16:00 UTC | #147304

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Comment 3 by Oromasdes1978

Ah, so I got this wrong then Richard, you are not the messiah or a very naughty boy, but in fact the Devil in disguise! Thats quite a career shift but I suppose you are giving up your Charles Symoni Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford seat later this year so you'll want to keep busy!

It all makes sense now! :)

Well done to yourself and Paula on the talk, I look forward to watching the video when it turns up, I hope your voice gets back to normal!

Philip

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:22:00 UTC | #147314

Paula Kirby's Avatar Comment 4 by Paula Kirby

Beth: Well how typical of Lennox to once again ride on the back of Dawkins' success. What a bore.
To be fair, UHI did invite him! They were always planning to hold a high-profile event with a Christian later in the year, to balance the one with Richard.

Actually, it's quite fun that it's the Christians whingeing about a lack of balance in all this, since UHI have a series of three lectures planned in this series: the one by Richard, of course - plus TWO by Christians! Funnily enough, though, I haven't heard any atheists going to the BBC or the local press to whinge about imbalance.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:28:00 UTC | #147319

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 5 by Steve Zara

Comment #155121 by Paula Kirby

Funnily enough, though, I haven't heard any atheists going to the BBC or the local press to whinge about imbalance.


Perhaps we should? It seems only fair. To maintain some kind of balance...

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:30:00 UTC | #147323

Artful_Dodger's Avatar Comment 6 by Artful_Dodger

Well how typical of Lennox to once again ride on the back of Dawkins' success. What a bore.


Beth, what do you know about Dr Lennox? I'll have you know that he does not need Dawkins' success or anyone else's. He is a very well-established mathemetician with many peer-reviewed papers in group theory. Long before Dawkins crossed his path he had acquired science doctorates from both Cambridge and Oxford, including a doctorate in the Philosophy of Science.

Please don't show your absolute and total ignorance by making such pathetically ridiculous comments. Why don't you all cut the "Dawkins is God" crap. Try to weigh up his arguments against those of his opponents a bit more objectively. I've never seen such bowing and scraping as before the name of Richard Dawkins on this site. OK, he's a first class evolutionary biologist who as written some ground-breaking scientific books and papers. But when will you face up to the fact that on theology, Biblical criticism and philosophy he is out of his depth. And TGD was just a long rant under a very irregular, patchy scientific veneer.

Will you bother to listen to Lennox's response in October? Will anyone here? Or have you taken Dawkins' statements as unanswerable ex-catedra pronouncements?

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:42:00 UTC | #147336

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 7 by Steve Zara

Comment #155138 by Artful_Dodger

And TGD was just a long rant under a very irregular, patchy scietific veneer.


Then you should have no problem refuting its arguments.

Where would you like to start?

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:45:00 UTC | #147341

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 8 by Quetzalcoatl

Artful_Dodger-

don't rant, it's unbecoming. If Lennox's lecture ends up on this site, I might well listen to it. I don't know, since it's six months away and I'll probably forget otherwise.

There are unanswered questions on the Pastor thread.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:45:00 UTC | #147342

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 9 by scottishgeologist

Paula

It is interesting that Andrew McGowan of the Highland Theological College is one of the Christian speakers.

McGowan, for those that dont know has already crossed swords with David Robertson. In a letter entitled "Guns to the North" you can see what I mean (iff you can be bothered...)

http://www.freechurch.org/pdf/monthlyrecord/feb07.pdf

Also, and perhaps more interestingly, McGowan has recently started to question the use of the word "inerrant" in connection with the Bible. This has bena major plank of conservative evangelicalism for centuries, and when an academic of considerable standing liek McGowan starts to wobble, it makes me wonder... are the cracks starting to show?

This is the book:

http://www.ivpbooks.com/isbn/9781844742202.htm

Some of David Robertson's own colleagues have expressed grave reservations about this.

Could get interesting!

:-)
SG

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:46:00 UTC | #147343

Dr Benway's Avatar Comment 10 by Dr Benway

If there is no God, theology is a non-subject Dodger.

Say, any chance you'll enlighten us with your method of sorting metaphor from literal truth in the Bible?

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:48:00 UTC | #147350

faouloki's Avatar Comment 12 by faouloki

Artful_Dodger - wow, who'd have thought the official Richard Dawkins website would have comments about Richard Dawkins!?

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:59:00 UTC | #147359

Artful_Dodger's Avatar Comment 11 by Artful_Dodger

Dr Benway, I have done ... at least twice. But if theology is a non-subject, then the Bible is hardly a serious enough subject for discussion here, in which case there is nothing that I could possibly say about it which you would consider worth hearing. So in what sense do you want me to "enlighten" you?

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:59:00 UTC | #147358

Artful_Dodger's Avatar Comment 13 by Artful_Dodger

faouloki, comments are one thing, sycophantic adulation is another.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:01:00 UTC | #147361

faouloki's Avatar Comment 14 by faouloki

sycophantic adulation

Examples please

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:02:00 UTC | #147363

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 15 by Cartomancer

Theology, narrowly defined as the study of the properties and nature of god, is a non-subject, because god does not exist.

The bible, on the other hand, very much does exist. I have seen several of them quite recently as it happens. I've even read them in the past. Its existence can be objectively verified. Moreover, as a cultural document it can offer us all manner of insights into peoples of a bygone age.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:03:00 UTC | #147365

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 16 by scottishgeologist

Artful_Dodger said:

Why don't you all cut the "Dawkins is God" crap

Actually, I think that is what the theists were saying outside Eden Court on Wed night:

http://www.christianstogether.net/Images/content/658/173334.jpg

From:
http://www.christianstogether.net/Publisher/Article.aspx?ID=110603

:-)))))))))))))))
SG

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:04:00 UTC | #147367

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 17 by Steve Zara

Comment #155164 by Artful_Dodger

Don't be silly. You only had to get to the 4th comment before you found someone disagreeing with Richard Dawkins.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:05:00 UTC | #147368

Incredulous's Avatar Comment 18 by Incredulous

Try to weigh up his arguments against those of his opponents a bit more objectively.


Can someone clear my mind as to whether objective is the same as unbiased?

My understanding is that objective simply means pertaining to facts and observed evidence. Unbiased obviously refers to a lack of personal prejudice and subjectivity in decision making.

I can't for the life of me see how it is possible to have objectivity without facts and evidence.

Of course, I can see both sides of an argument, but that argument can be as content free as theology - oops, I'm letting my jaundiced approach in favour of evidence laden thought colour my thoughts again.

So why is artful dodger asking me to be more objective when I am seeking only to be objective?

I've never seen such bowing and scraping as before the name of Richard Dawkins on this site. OK, he's a first class evolutionary biologist who as written some ground-breaking scientific books and papers. But when will you face up to the fact that on theology, Biblical criticism and philosophy he is out of his depth.


The fact that he is a first rate evolutionary biologist does actually mean something to me. I have seen or can infer no bowing and scraping. In fact, I would imagine many here would jump on any inaccuracy he made pretty damn quick. I've noticed there are some pretty well qualified and very smart people contributing to this site and like tends to listen to like.

The fact that he is also out of his depth on biblical criticism and philosophy is quite reasuring for me. But is it possible to drown in a shallow murky pond? There is no depth to the bible. Just cobbled together tales of yore; works of the imagination.

Why don't you all cut the "Dawkins is God" crap.


I think everyone on here thinks that Richard is simply a good bloke; and we like good blokes who talk about things we can trust. You're right, he isn't god which is precisely why I appreciate what he does and says.

He's a tried and trusted exponent of that thing we should all aspire to - reasoning with evidence.

Mmm.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:09:00 UTC | #147371

Artful_Dodger's Avatar Comment 19 by Artful_Dodger

What's your point scottishgeologist? If the God of the Bible does indeed exist, there might be a very strong case for being prepared to meet him, don't you think? If he does not, not all that much is lost by believing in Him.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:10:00 UTC | #147372

faouloki's Avatar Comment 20 by faouloki

What's your point scottishgeologist? If the God of the Bible does indeed exist, there might be a very strong case for being prepared to meet him, don't you think? If he does not, not all that much is lost by believing in Him.

Um, I think it has more to do with people walking in to watch Richard talk going past a sign saying "Prepare to meet thy God"

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:12:00 UTC | #147373

Artful_Dodger's Avatar Comment 21 by Artful_Dodger

Steve you are the exception (or one of the few) that proves the rule.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:12:00 UTC | #147374

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 22 by Cartomancer

If he does not, not all that much is lost by believing in Him.
Apart from the truth you mean? Oh, and ten per cent of your income, your ability to make sensible moral decisions and critically assess evidence and the respect of all right-thinking people the world over? Sounds quite a high stake to put on the world's flimsiest tip-off to me...

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:13:00 UTC | #147376

The Reverend Dark's Avatar Comment 23 by The Reverend Dark

Artful. Well done; Pascal's Wager.

Twat.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:14:00 UTC | #147378

jiujitstheist's Avatar Comment 24 by jiujitstheist

As much as I hate to agree with Artful_Dodger he does make a valid point. I'm an atheist. I think Dawkins is a great man. It's great to have someone of his stature smacking the fundies upside the head. However, there is, at times, too much boot licking going on in the threads. Dawkins more than anyone would want more objectiveness by some on the board.
But dodger is still a tool.
;)

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:16:00 UTC | #147379

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 25 by scottishgeologist

Artful_Dodger

Faouluki beat me to it - I thought it was very amusing, the way they had that sign placed. Of course, it may have been very tongue in cheek. But knowing what I do about the sense of humour of these people I think, "Nahhhh"

:-)
SG

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:17:00 UTC | #147381

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 27 by Quetzalcoatl

Artful-

Pascal's Wager. What an excellent argument. Certainly not one that could be described as terrible. Nor one that raises questions like "which God would that be, exactly?"

So, all finished on the Pastor thread, are you?

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:18:00 UTC | #147383

Frankus1122's Avatar Comment 26 by Frankus1122


"Dawkins is God"


I thought it was Clapton.

Anyway, something has slowly dawned on me: where are the arguments from the theists?
Is Artful Dodger, Kardashovel, clearthinker, etc. the best there is?
There seems to be a lot of dancing around issues and questions. Have you ever cracked an egg in a bowl and got a bit of the shell in there? You know how you try to pick it out and it sort of slides away? I get that feeling when trying to get an answer from a theist here.
One would think that a clear convincing true statement could be made that would not be easily refuted if you were truly inspired by the Living God.
I am not totally dim. However, I am yet to be convinced by anything the apologists have put forward to convince me God exists.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:18:00 UTC | #147382

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 28 by Steve Zara

Comment #155176 by Artful_Dodger

If the God of the Bible does indeed exist, there might be a very strong case for being prepared to meet him, don't you think?


Which God of the Bible? The old-testament one? The New Testament one(s)? Or how about the Gods of the theologists, which seem to bear little relation to either?

If he does not, not all that much is lost by believing in Him.


Belief leads to people acting on what they consider to be His wishes. I'm not so happy about that, as I am gay and His wishes (according to many) seem to be that I am considered evil, or a least a bit naughty.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:18:00 UTC | #147384

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 29 by irate_atheist

15. Comment #155164 by Artful_Dodger -

comments are one thing, sycophantic adulation is another.
Indeed. Such childish behaviour should be kept where it belongs. Churches, Mosques, Synagogues etc. and not in the real world.[/sarcasm]

4. Comment #155106 by Steve Zara -
I can't agree that we could be heading for extinction.
On what timescale do you not agree that we are heading for extinction. 100 years? 1,000 years? 1 million years? 1 billion years? I would contend that all species are heading towards extinction, it's just that some are heading there sooner than others...Whaddya think?

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:19:00 UTC | #147385

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 30 by Cartomancer

Is there some objective standard of appropriate praise and sentiments of appreciation for internet forums now then? When did gushing praise for people we respect and admire suddenly become a bad thing?

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:19:00 UTC | #147386