Fantastic letter from Richard Dawkins to his daughter.

[TruePaige]

That guy is the biggest FUCKING TOOL.

Only self-righteous, egotistical, Prick, Stick up the ass atheists care about what he has to say.

I hate nutjobs. Period.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
That guy is the biggest FUCKING TOOL.

Only self-righteous, egotistical, Prick, Stick up the ass atheists care about what he has to say.

I hate nutjobs. Period.

A religious clown calling someone else a tool, nutjob, and self-righteous.


ATOT fundies never cease to provide me entertainment. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Nice little essay. Usual Dawkins usage of logics to defeat stupidity. It wasn't really well written, but it was easy to follow and very thorough.

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The problem with this post is that anyone smart enough and open-minded enough to read and understand Dawkins isn't religious in the first place. It's not going to convince any of the young earth, Noah's Ark troglodytes that they're wrong.

They probably aren't smart enough to read anyhow ....

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The problem with this post is that anyone smart enough and open-minded enough to read and understand Dawkins isn't religious in the first place. It's not going to convince any of the young earth, Noah's Ark troglodytes that they're wrong.

Close. I think there are quite a few people who are religious and don't agree with Dawkins, but they have rationalized religion and tailored it quite carefully so that it essentially is irrefutable.

A religious person might believe in heaven - something for which there is no evidence, but also something for which there is no evidence against. A religious person might believe that the great flood was caused by a meteor impact (thanks for the links bsobel... interesting read), and that "2 of every animal" might have meant "2 of every animal you can find locally so that you can get your farm going again" and that "the flood waters covered the whole world" would mean "the flood waters covered the whole of the known world" where the known world was everything within 200km of Israel. A religious person might believe that there are rational explanations for everything in the Bible and it is the stories which have become exaggerated over time, but it is not the exact details of the story which are important, but rather the underlying message.

That type of religion is hard to argue against. Dawkins misses the boat when he bunches all religious people together and tears them down as he lumps these people in with the doorknobs who can't think for themselves. There is a subsect of religious people who actually do think rationally about their faith and who are quite intelligent. I actually know a few such people and have learned a lot from them. I don't really agree with them, but I do respect them and their beliefs because they've actually done a good deal of thinking about it.

Your point about the doorknobs who can't think for themselves stands though. They wouldn't be convinced by anything, let alone a letter which essentially insults them.

You make some excellent points about absolute versus relative truths. Intelligent, rational, religious people may defend their beliefs based on only relative truths, based upon the world to the extent the people in the Bible were aware of. (i.e. you note the "known world" at the time of the flood encompassed only a relatively small area outside of Israel, and at the time, there were no methods for gathering evidence about the existence of a larger world beyond the flooding.) Taken in historical context, this seems reasonable.

I agree that Dawkins' piece seems to be aimed more at the hardcore fundamentalists who blindly believe a religion, and while I can appreciate his efforts to deconstruct their argument, his tone is too condescending (as I mentioned earlier), so his message is rendered less effective.

I cannot comment on Dawkins' other works as I haven't read them, but if this is his tone of argument, it does his message a disservice.

 

[bignateyk]

blah blah blah, don't believe in religion.

There, I just saved you 10 minutes.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
That guy is the biggest FUCKING TOOL.

Only self-righteous, egotistical, Prick, Stick up the ass atheists care about what he has to say.

I hate nutjobs. Period.

paging moonbeam, we need a post about self hate for this guy

 

[TheInternet1980]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: So
Lay off the caffeine, for your own good as well as ours.

lay off the anti-whatever trip you're on. i used to think you were cool, now i think you're more of a whackjob than the fundies.

Sorry for posting something that entertained me. There's like one sentence in there directly addressing religion.

YOU BETTER BE SORRY

😕

😕

 

[xSauronx]

letter was too long, no way a 10 year old would bother to read that unless under threat of punishment. theyd just fold it up and scribble "tl;dr" on the back and leave it on daddys desk

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: rivan

That's where you and many agnostics and atheists differ. It's certainly where you and I disagree.

I'll agree with you that he's condescending. So too, very often, are those with faith speaking to those without. Does harsh delivery of his message invalidate it to you?

I guess this is the part where we could get into a bit of a philosophical discussion. I'm loathe to bring up the stupid "Am I really here? Or am I a character in someone's dream?" BS that is spouted off in philosophy classes, but there's a somewhat sensical interpretation. It has to do with determining what's true without having any evidence.

Right now we (scientists) accept the big bang as truth. We have a lot of evidence, enough to convince ourselves that it happened. Let's go back in time to 1200 AD. The evidence of the big bang is unknown to humans - does that make the big bang any less true?

While I'm no scientist, I was under the impression the Big Bang was still a theory. It might be a widely accepted, pretty solid theory, but it's still a theory. Then again, I still consider Pluto a planet 😉

My current line of thought is that there is an absolute truth to the universe, and an absolute set of facts which are true. Our acceptance of those facts comes in to existence when we gather evidence. The truth you speak of requires evidence and covers only those truths to which we have come into contact. The truth I speak of is absolute.

I understand your point of view, but accepting anything as truth without evidence isn't responsible, in my opinion. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes just convenient, sometimes it just doesn't matter (if there is no God, is there any harm directly from believing in Him? - leave religion and all it's implications out of it - simply belief in God). None of that means it's responsible in the quest for such absolute truth.

I flip a coin and cover it up so no one ever sees it. I flip it again. There is an absolute truth as to whether it originally came up heads or tails. There is no evidence anymore as to what it was. It will be forever inaccessible to us.

Forever's a very long time.

You're correct, of course, that there are some things we'll simply never have absolute proof for. Many things. That's no reason to give up and just accept that the coin landed on heads, because your parents told you so. Or your science teacher.

Of course, this position is highly impractical. Question everything too incessantly and you'll never get anywhere, just retreading the last 1,000 years of learning, trying to fit it into your own lifetime. I'm not an astrophysicist - but I still accept the Big Bang as the most probable theory we've got for the origin of our universe.

Just with the coin, there is an absolute truth as to whether my wife loves me or not. That truth may be inaccessible to a scientific proof, but it still exists.

This kind of truth even extends into law. We don't require the burden of proof to be absolute, just beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether someone is guilty of murder or not is an absolute truth in many cases, even though that truth may not ever be proven beyond all doubt in a court.

Reasonable doubt is the best balance we've got between expedience and justice, imperfect as it is. Such is the real world - expecting absolute proof in a courtroom is as impractical as literally questioning everything is when in school. To be honest, I don't expect absolute proof of anything, but I don't accept anything purely on faith either.

Life is lived in the grey between absolute light and dark. Never is there a story with just one side, never is there a choice with no complicating factor.

As to your second point, yes I agree that many of those who preach religion are as offensive in their discourses as Dawkins. The speaker is just a medium for a message, and it should be up to the individual to separate the two. I certainly align myself more with Dawkins' message than I do of the church's, but I would gladly sit and discuss science and religion with some of the religious members of my family because I find them to be less grating than Dawkins.

I tend not to talk about those topics with anyone, except occasionally here. In general, the religious people I know are overall decent people; good members of the community, good parents, good neighbors. My appraisal of how they believe people came to be isn't terribly important, and won't ever be as long as they respect my family's right to different beliefs.

Faith in a higher power can give people remarkable resilience, purpose and drive - there's a lot of positive stuff to be said for a motivator like that. It's a great thing, unless/until it's manipulated by someone in a position of trust in their lives, be it a local pastor, a televangelist, a dictator, an imam, a pope.

Growing up, I was not treated gently for my beliefs by my peers - and occasionally teachers. I can't count the number of times I've been told I'll be going to hell. Sometimes the judgment's delivered with condescending sadness for the plight of my eternal soul, sometimes with the fire of the righteous anger. All this hatred being parroted as it was parroted to them, and all coming from someone other than themselves.

My issue isn't with people's belief in a higher power, it's when an organization uses that faith to further it's own disingenuous ambitions that I take exception.

Believe what you want, but don't try to pass judgment on me; it won't get you very far. Treat me with the same consideration and we'll be golden.

 

[OrByte]

After reading that Letter it was clearly not meant to be read by a 10 year old.

Makes me wonder what he thinks of his true and actual audience... :roll:

I just want to say something real quick about faith. We all have faith. Everything is based upon faith. Faith is enough to drive everything and everyone.

He wouldn't be a scientist unless he had faith that he could find answers to his scientific questions. Why he dismisses faith as something less than the "instincts" he relies upon is a mystery to me. To me, it is one and the same. He wouldn't have instincts if he didn't have faith in following his instincts.

An athiest wouldn't be an athiest unless he/she had faith in the finality of his/her existence.

Just like a thiest has faith in the power that may guide him/her.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss faith. And by extension I wouldn't be too quick to require evidence to support one's faith. Faith simply is and we all have it. And since we are all different and all products of our different environments why place a persons faith as better or worse than your own? His tone implies that people of religious faith have not done the appropriate critical thinking to support their faith. I admit that even though he may be right, he may find that he is not right across the board.

Oh and his argument against 'revelation' is a nice strawman. Unless he is referring to 'divine revelation'

If you had asked the Pope in 1950 how he knew that Mary?s body disappeared into Heaven, he would probably have said that it had been ?revealed? to him. He shut himself in his room and prayed for guidance. He thought and thought, all by himself, and he became more and more sure inside himself. When religious people just have a feeling inside themselves that something must be true, even though there is no evidence that it is true, they call their feeling ?revelation'

a quick google search for the definition of 'revelation' doesn't support this. A quick google search for 'Divine Revelation' seems to be what he is referring to. I could be wrong though. Also, it is not enough to simply dismiss 'revelation' as having no evidence nor support. Afterall, aren't we really talking about Faith? 😛 And is it not OK to establish 'Faith' as being just as valid as 'Instinct'? Maybe the empirical evidence that people like Dawkins requires, exists in a way that we have not yet developed a method to observe?

I read this and the first thing I think of is; salesman tactics.

But it is interesting stuff to ponder on a beautiful afternoon. 🙂

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: spidey07
Forcing his religion on his daughter. He really should be ashamed of himself.

Er...either my sarcasm meter is totally broken or you didn't read the OP at all.

😕

No sarcasm. People like this really exist. He thinks Atheism and scientific skepticism is a religion.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: rivan
While I'm no scientist, I was under the impression the Big Bang was still a theory. It might be a widely accepted, pretty solid theory, but it's still a theory. Then again, I still consider Pluto a planet 😉

Theory is the highest proof there is. "Facts" are the datapoints predicted by a theory, and "Law" is a way of describing the theory.

Science Goes like this:
1. Find Evidence of *something*
2. Come up with a hypothesis (guess) about it.
3. Find more evidence, see if it conforms with the hypothesis.
4. If so, repeat, once you have a TON of evidence, and are certain beyond a reasonable doubt, it becomes a theory.
5. If not, go back to step two.


That's it. There is nothing higher than theory. Theory means "best description we have for a phenomenon"

The big bang, like natural selection, is a "theory" because it conforms with all evidence found so far, and has reached the highest level of proof that science can take it to. When someone finds a datapoint that a theory does not explain, we go back to step 2 and modify our theory as a hypothesis again.

Newton's "laws" of motion are simply a way of describing newton's theories of motion.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: OrByte
After reading that Letter it was clearly not meant to be read by a 10 year old.

Makes me wonder what he thinks of his true and actual audience... :roll:

I just want to say something real quick about faith. We all have faith. Everything is based upon faith. Faith is enough to drive everything and everyone.

He wouldn't be a scientist unless he had faith that he could find answers to his scientific questions. Why he dismisses faith as something less than the "instincts" he relies upon is a mystery to me. To me, it is one and the same. He wouldn't have instincts if he didn't have faith in following his instincts.

An athiest wouldn't be an athiest unless he/she had faith in the finality of his/her existence.

Just like a thiest has faith in the power that may guide him/her.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss faith. And by extension I wouldn't be too quick to require evidence to support one's faith. Faith simply is and we all have it. And since we are all different and all products of our different environments why place a persons faith as better or worse than your own? His tone implies that people of religious faith have not done the appropriate critical thinking to support their faith. I admit that even though he may be right, he may find that he is not right across the board.

Oh and his argument against 'revelation' is a nice strawman. Unless he is referring to 'divine revelation'

If you had asked the Pope in 1950 how he knew that Mary?s body disappeared into Heaven, he would probably have said that it had been ?revealed? to him. He shut himself in his room and prayed for guidance. He thought and thought, all by himself, and he became more and more sure inside himself. When religious people just have a feeling inside themselves that something must be true, even though there is no evidence that it is true, they call their feeling ?revelation'

a quick google search for the definition of 'revelation' doesn't support this. A quick google search for 'Divine Revelation' seems to be what he is referring to. I could be wrong though. Also, it is not enough to simply dismiss 'revelation' as having no evidence nor support. Afterall, aren't we really talking about Faith? 😛 And is it not OK to establish 'Faith' as being just as valid as 'Instinct'? Maybe the empirical evidence that people like Dawkins requires, exists in a way that we have not yet developed a method to observe?

I read this and the first thing I think of is; salesman tactics.

But it is interesting stuff to ponder on a beautiful afternoon. 🙂

This is a whole different thread, but scientists don't have faith, they have confidence based on the reliability of previous results. That is totally different than faith in something with no evidence.

 

[randay]

please provide evidence that this letter was written by richard dawkins for his 10 year old daughter.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: zinfamous
eh, the point is that there are other ways to explain that these things happen outside of religion. Until prayer or God's love becomes the only way to explain why something happens, then it stands as nothing more than faith.

Many theists love to use natural phenomena such as Rainbows or gorgeous days as "proof" of God's love....but of course there are countless scientific explanations for why and how such things occur, with volumes of evidence to back it up...

...and there are many scientific reasons why a person's eye might have a little twinkle in it too.

My point is that not everything needs a rigorous scientific proof in order to be accepted as true. There are certain arenas in which this is the case, and others in which it is not.

I just don't really agree with Dawkins' methods.

That's where you and many agnostics and atheists differ. It's certainly where you and I disagree.

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

What? He doesn't do that. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who express negative opinions on Dawkin's writing haven't read it. He does put down some of the more vacuous religious ideas rather harshly, but he doesn't call anyone a moron. I thought "The God Delusion" was an overall well thought out book that covers every facet of religion that's relevant to the point he was trying to make.

Honestly I think it's just fashionable to hate the guy now.

I'll admit I haven't read his books cover to cover, but I've spent some time in bookstores reading his books. It seemed to me as though a large part of his books are spent dissecting the Bible line by line, commenting harshly on poor logic and inconsistencies taken out of context.

I've read some other things by him online (although I'd be hard-pressed to find them again), that are written in a very harsh and condescending tone. Perhaps the explicit words aren't there, but the sentiment is.

I'll agree with you that he's condescending. So too, very often, are those with faith speaking to those without. Does harsh delivery of his message invalidate it to you?

He's not harsh at all. The reason people find him offensive is because of the automatic resepct for religion that's been ground into us. This is the most offensive line in The God Delusion:

?The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.?

"That's offensive" isn't an argument. Is it incorrect?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: randay
please provide evidence that this letter was written by richard dawkins for his 10 year old daughter.

It was submitted by Richard Dawkins to the site of a group that he has been known to work with before. It's not conclusive proof, but given the irrelevance of the question (if he didn't write it, does it matter, at all?) and the mundane nature of the claim (it wouldn't even be slightly surprising if he did indeed write this), it's perfectly reasonable to act as if he did indeed write it.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: randay
please provide evidence that this letter was written by richard dawkins for his 10 year old daughter.

Americans hate the fuck out of it. And religious people think he's a cult leader for advocating critical thinking in it. It's got Dawkins written all over it.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: randay
please provide evidence that this letter was written by richard dawkins for his 10 year old daughter.

It was submitted by Richard Dawkins to the site of a group that he has been known to work with before. It's not conclusive proof, but given the irrelevance of the question (if he didn't write it, does it matter, at all?) and the mundane nature of the claim (it wouldn't even be slightly surprising if he did indeed write this), it's perfectly reasonable to act as if he did indeed write it.

That's what pisses me off the most about this. The content of the letter is so fucking mundane. The hatred that a mildly-written primer on applying scientific skepticism to religion can invoke in people is amazing. He must be doing something right if the ATOT Jesus freaks hate him.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: OrByte
After reading that Letter it was clearly not meant to be read by a 10 year old.

Makes me wonder what he thinks of his true and actual audience... :roll:

Terrible that a man might raise his child to be literate.

He readily admits that everyone must sometimes guess at what the correct answer to a situation so that we have a method with which to navigate life.

The whole point of the letter is to not accept traditions and authority without examination.

I fail to see what is so scary or offensive about that.

 

[spikespiegal]

Paging Mr. Dawkins;

(1) Science is the pursuit of knowledge, not truth.

(2) I can't prove things like love, hope, conscience, etc. Science did not invent these concepts either.

(3) It's not the scientific establishment's job to disprove religious beliefs; merely to ignore them.

(4) I don't believe in the higgs particle, nor spending gazillions of dollars looking for it.

(5) Your daughter will likely grow up and mary a devout catholic 😀

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: OrByte
After reading that Letter it was clearly not meant to be read by a 10 year old.

Makes me wonder what he thinks of his true and actual audience... :roll:

Terrible that a man might raise his child to be literate.

He readily admits that everyone must sometimes guess at what the correct answer to a situation so that we have a method with which to navigate life.

The whole point of the letter is to not accept traditions and authority without examination.

I fail to see what is so scary or offensive about that.

It's scary when your entire world view revolves around enforcing ignorance through tradition and authority.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: randay
please provide evidence that this letter was written by richard dawkins for his 10 year old daughter.

It was submitted by Richard Dawkins to the site of a group that he has been known to work with before. It's not conclusive proof, but given the irrelevance of the question (if he didn't write it, does it matter, at all?) and the mundane nature of the claim (it wouldn't even be slightly surprising if he did indeed write this), it's perfectly reasonable to act as if he did indeed write it.

I am concerned because it says:

"Submitted by RichardDawkins on September 20, 2006 - 11:58am. "

then follows with:

"The following is a letter that Richard Dawkins wrote to his daughter when she turned 10. Richard is one of the worlds most renowned scientists who is known for speaking out against the dangers of religion."

Would seem to indicate that it was posted by someone else under the guise of being posted by Richard Dawkins.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: randay
please provide evidence that this letter was written by richard dawkins for his 10 year old daughter.

It was submitted by Richard Dawkins to the site of a group that he has been known to work with before. It's not conclusive proof, but given the irrelevance of the question (if he didn't write it, does it matter, at all?) and the mundane nature of the claim (it wouldn't even be slightly surprising if he did indeed write this), it's perfectly reasonable to act as if he did indeed write it.

I am concerned because it says:

"Submitted by RichardDawkins on September 20, 2006 - 11:58am. "

then follows with:

"The following is a letter that Richard Dawkins wrote to his daughter when she turned 10. Richard is one of the worlds most renowned scientists who is known for speaking out against the dangers of religion."

Would seem to indicate that it was posted by someone else under the guise of being posted by Richard Dawkins.

Okay, so?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: spidey07
Forcing his religion on his daughter. He really should be ashamed of himself.

Er...either my sarcasm meter is totally broken or you didn't read the OP at all.

😕

I read the whole thing. It is nothing more than him indoctrinating his child to his religion and it's disgusting.

No, not at all.

He's telling her to think for herself and ask for evidence when someone tells her to believe something.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Pheran

Originally posted by: silverpig

Dawkins: I love you dear.
Daughter: What kind of evidence is there for that? Prove love.

Wow, talk about incredibly missing the point, since this very topic is mentioned in the essay.

And very weakly covered.

Also weak is his explanation that believing something from a religious authority is always bad (bringing up murder as an example of a result of believing a religious authority), whereas believing something from a scientific authority is perfectly reasonable in every case (Sure, people never do anything bad based on scientific belief). As a scientist, he should know that (a)he can't possibly hope to "examine the evidence" in detail for every single topic, and many things DO get skewed or downplayed in papers, and (b)not every facet of every scientific concept is backed up by rigorous experiment--many times it is just a logical construct which has yet to be disproved, and (c)Warped religion and warped science have both been used to justify the slaughter of millions, and neither should be used as a general example.

In short: it is impossible to live a life where you don't take a very large number of things essentially on faith. While it's good practice to maintain a healthy skepticism, taking it too far in some areas while ignoring it in others, and then claiming some sort of high ground as a result, makes you look like a giant tool.