Fantastic letter from Richard Dawkins to his daughter.

[So]

Originally posted by: 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 😀

1. Care to delineate the difference? Last time I checked science didn't seek to know things that were not true.
2. Yes you can, you just don't want to.
3. Science doesn't have a job, it is the way of addressing the validity of claims.
4. That's great. Reality isn't up for a vote. If it was, I'd vote for a billion tons of solid gold.
5. And then deconvert her!

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: 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?

so its fake.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: 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.

Er, his point is not that everything said by a religious authority is bad, nor is it that everything from a scientific authority is good.

His point is that NOTHING should be accepted just because someone with a title said it.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: 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?

so its fake.

So? So what if RD didn't write it? Who cares? What does it matter?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: 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?

so its fake.

So? So what if RD didn't write it? Who cares? What does it matter?

1 minute of Googling turns up the source, guys. The letter was originally published in Dawkins' book A Devil's Chaplin as an open letter to his daughter.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: randay
so its fake.

I took it to mean 1 of 2 things:

1.) A site administrator responsible for adding content to the site goes by the alias RichardDawkins because he's an idiot fan. The story itself is actually something the real Dawkins wrote, but was taken from another source with the source's introduction intact.

2.) Richard Dawkins posted the letter himself, but copied and pasted it from another source, leaving the other source's introduction intact.

You'll notice at the bottom there is a link to an article by Sam Harris that was posted by "SamHarris" as well.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I love Richard Dawkins

 

[So]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: 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?

so its fake.

So? So what if RD didn't write it? Who cares? What does it matter?

1 minute of Googling turns up the source, guys. The letter was originally published in Dawkins' book A Devil's Chaplin as an open letter to his daughter.

Well, there you go -- but -- I think my point stands. Even if a homeless aibo wrote it, the source is totally irrelevant to the material covered.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: 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?

so its fake.

So? So what if RD didn't write it? Who cares? What does it matter?

1 minute of Googling turns up the source, guys. The letter was originally published in Dawkins' book A Devil's Chaplin as an open letter to his daughter.

ok now im lost, daddy never said what to do when they give a good answer. i guess we're supposed to... have sex?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I love Richard Dawkins

Oh my science indeed and I shall eat dawkins daughter on my tummay! That episode is pretty much how I view it all and dawkins is a perfect example.

 

[91TTZ]

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.

What is it with people stating something ridiculous and then saying "period" at the end? It's as if your statement can't stand on its own so you have to throw in a lame attempt at ending the discussion.

 

[spikespiegal]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 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 😀

1. Care to delineate the difference? Last time I checked science didn't seek to know things that were not true.
2. Yes you can, you just don't want to.
3. Science doesn't have a job, it is the way of addressing the validity of claims.
4. That's great. Reality isn't up for a vote. If it was, I'd vote for a billion tons of solid gold.
5. And then deconvert her!

(1) Science is universally defined as the pursuit of knowledge...unless that's changed between 7th grade science class and college philosophy class. Science is not the abstract achievement of total truth. That's religion's job - and need I point out the irony in you not understanding it.

(2) Somebody listens to too much John Tesh, and it ain't me.

(3) Science's job, is to address scientific claims and observations, not philsophical or theologic ones. Again, that's basic scientific method taught at any higher college research level.

(4) No, I'm not voting on your concept of reality either. Real science gets it's hands dirty and attempts to solve problems of human condition, not write essays about how stupid people are for voting for a certain political party, which is really what Dawkin's is getting at.

"Think critically, but only be critical about these things"...uh huh.

(5) Yeah, convert to Buddhism. Not as much money with potential research grants chasing abstract physics, but you might die a lot happier.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I love Richard Dawkins

Oh my science indeed and I shall eat dawkins daughter on my tummay! That episode is pretty much how I view it all and dawkins is a perfect example.

I take Dawkins about as seriously as they did in South Park. If people want to drool all over him, hey they can knock themselves out.

I've read at some of this stuff, but I don't think he's half as bright as some want him to be. He's not all that.

 

[Ruptga]

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

I know, I thought the same thing :laugh:

But all the same he does have some good points

 

[So]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 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 😀

1. Care to delineate the difference? Last time I checked science didn't seek to know things that were not true.
2. Yes you can, you just don't want to.
3. Science doesn't have a job, it is the way of addressing the validity of claims.
4. That's great. Reality isn't up for a vote. If it was, I'd vote for a billion tons of solid gold.
5. And then deconvert her!

(1) Science is universally defined as the pursuit of knowledge...unless that's changed between 7th grade science class and college philosophy class. Science is not the abstract achievement of total truth. That's religion's job - and need I point out the irony in you not understanding it.

(2) Somebody listens to too much John Tesh, and it ain't me.

(3) Science's job, is to address scientific claims and observations, not philsophical or theologic ones. Again, that's basic scientific method taught at any higher college research level.

(4) No, I'm not voting on your concept of reality either. Real science gets it's hands dirty and attempts to solve problems of human condition, not write essays about how stupid people are for voting for a certain political party, which is really what Dawkin's is getting at.

"Think critically, but only be critical about these things"...uh huh.

(5) Yeah, convert to Buddhism. Not as much money with potential research grants chasing abstract physics, but you might die a lot happier.

1. Define "total truth" please. Science addresses the truth of claims made.
2. Who?
3. You're putting magical claims in a special box. Science can address any truth claim made about reality.
4. What? This has nothing to do with political parties.

 

[Babbles]

I think Dawkins is a dick.

Here is a YouTube clip where Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson makes, I think, some valid points about the sharpness of words and attitude that Dawkins has.

Dr. Tyson is, allegedly, an atheist as well. However is just not a condescending arrogant asshole like Dawkins.

Also below are some interesting video clips of Dr. Tyson talking about religion and great scientists; very entertaining and education.
Part 1
Part 2

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: So


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.

Scientists have faith that the answers to their question(s) exist in evidence that has not yet been observed.

Science has the tools to make those observations a reality....most of the time 🙂

Those tools being "the reliability of previous results" that you referenced before. Results observed by scientists of before, who had the same faith in the possibility of evidence that was out there not yet observed. Unless Scientists already know the answers to their questions....but I don't think you will find a scientist that will make that assertion.

Im not knocking science, nor scientists...I'm just calling it like I see it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 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 😀

1. Care to delineate the difference? Last time I checked science didn't seek to know things that were not true.
2. Yes you can, you just don't want to.
3. Science doesn't have a job, it is the way of addressing the validity of claims.
4. That's great. Reality isn't up for a vote. If it was, I'd vote for a billion tons of solid gold.
5. And then deconvert her!

(1) Science is universally defined as the pursuit of knowledge...unless that's changed between 7th grade science class and college philosophy class. Science is not the abstract achievement of total truth. That's religion's job - and need I point out the irony in you not understanding it.

(2) Somebody listens to too much John Tesh, and it ain't me.

(3) Science's job, is to address scientific claims and observations, not philsophical or theologic ones. Again, that's basic scientific method taught at any higher college research level.

(4) No, I'm not voting on your concept of reality either. Real science gets it's hands dirty and attempts to solve problems of human condition, not write essays about how stupid people are for voting for a certain political party, which is really what Dawkin's is getting at.

"Think critically, but only be critical about these things"...uh huh.

(5) Yeah, convert to Buddhism. Not as much money with potential research grants chasing abstract physics, but you might die a lot happier.

1. Define "total truth" please. Science addresses the truth of claims made.
2. Who?
3. You're putting magical claims in a special box. Science can address any truth claim made about reality.
4. What? This has nothing to do with political parties.

Out of curiosity, how does science deal with things that are beyond human comprehension?
Remember that the human brain is a finite object weighing 3 odd pounds. Unless you deify humanity, there are limits to what can be understood.

It's not like I really care, but people some people have a religious faith in science to explain all. At some point hopefully people are intellectually mature enough to say they aren't omniscient

 

[OrByte]

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.

I have a 10 year old daughter. I would not be utilizing examples of murder and dog killing in order to make a point with her. I would also not be making reference to religions that she has never heard of....I also consider my daughter very literate. Of course he could do things differently, no biggie.

I have no problem what so ever with his message and I think it is a good one. I do have a problem with his delivery. I think he does what alot of smart people do and that is dismiss people who have faith. And I think that is wrong.

I know I won't be teaching my daughter that...maybe he doesn't have a problem showing his daughter such intolerance.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: So


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.

Scientists have faith that the answers to their question(s) exist in evidence that has not yet been observed.

Science has the tools to make those observations a reality....most of the time 🙂

Those tools being "the reliability of previous results" that you referenced before. Results observed by scientists of before, who had the same faith in the possibility of evidence that was out there not yet observed. Unless Scientists already know the answers to their questions....but I don't think you will find a scientist that will make that assertion.

Im not knocking science, nor scientists...I'm just calling it like I see it.

You're exploiting a bug in the english language. Scientists assume that science will continue to work in the future because it has worked in the past and they have no better option than continuing to use science. If someone comes up with a more reliable approach to understand the world, scientists will switch to it.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 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 😀

1. Care to delineate the difference? Last time I checked science didn't seek to know things that were not true.
2. Yes you can, you just don't want to.
3. Science doesn't have a job, it is the way of addressing the validity of claims.
4. That's great. Reality isn't up for a vote. If it was, I'd vote for a billion tons of solid gold.
5. And then deconvert her!

(1) Science is universally defined as the pursuit of knowledge...unless that's changed between 7th grade science class and college philosophy class. Science is not the abstract achievement of total truth. That's religion's job - and need I point out the irony in you not understanding it.

(2) Somebody listens to too much John Tesh, and it ain't me.

(3) Science's job, is to address scientific claims and observations, not philsophical or theologic ones. Again, that's basic scientific method taught at any higher college research level.

(4) No, I'm not voting on your concept of reality either. Real science gets it's hands dirty and attempts to solve problems of human condition, not write essays about how stupid people are for voting for a certain political party, which is really what Dawkin's is getting at.

"Think critically, but only be critical about these things"...uh huh.

(5) Yeah, convert to Buddhism. Not as much money with potential research grants chasing abstract physics, but you might die a lot happier.

1. Define "total truth" please. Science addresses the truth of claims made.
2. Who?
3. You're putting magical claims in a special box. Science can address any truth claim made about reality.
4. What? This has nothing to do with political parties.

Out of curiosity, how does science deal with things that are beyond human comprehension?
Remember that the human brain is a finite object weighing 3 odd pounds. Unless you deify humanity, there are limits to what can be understood.

It's not like I really care, but people some people have a religious faith in science to explain all. At some point hopefully people are intellectually mature enough to say they aren't omniscient

Break it down into a bigger box or smaller pieces. What if you were a dog who understood the scientific method. You couldn't understand an internal combustion engine, but you could understand that if you put gas in the tank and turn the key it goes forward. You could have different dogs understand different pieces and between you, have a picture of the whole thing. You might never be able to improve upon it, but you could demonstrate that it was definitely not magic.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think Dawkins is a dick.

Here is a YouTube clip where Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson makes, I think, some valid points about the sharpness of words and attitude that Dawkins has.

Dr. Tyson is, allegedly, an atheist as well. However is just not a condescending arrogant asshole like Dawkins.

Also below are some interesting video clips of Dr. Tyson talking about religion and great scientists; very entertaining and education.
Part 1
Part 2

Haha, that's one of my favorite clips ever. "Science is interesting. If you don't agree, you can fuck off." Neil DeGrasse Tyson is awesome as well. They have different approaches because they're doing different things. Take Evolution for example. Many educators try to downplay the religious implications of human life being the result of gradual evolution in an attempt to sell the idea to as many people as possible, but Dawkins will say outright that he thinks that Evolution has definite Atheistic implications. That's because he's concerned more about how people think that what they think.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

(1) Science is universally defined as the pursuit of knowledge...unless that's changed between 7th grade science class and college philosophy class. Science is not the abstract achievement of total truth. That's religion's job - and need I point out the irony in you not understanding it.

"Abstract achievement of total truth"? Whoa nelly! What the hell does that even mean? The concept of "total truth" is something you made up on the spot to give religion a job isn't it? How can there be a total truth that is abstract? There are several definitions of the word abstract, but the one I'm assuming you mean is:

ab·stract (b-strkt, bstrkt)
adj.
1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
...

It's hardly "total" if it doesn't include concrete existence. Also, it probably isn't even true if you don't base it on anything you know (i.e. the concrete existence in which you live).

(2) Somebody listens to too much John Tesh, and it ain't me.

Uh, huh. 😕

(3) Science's job, is to address scientific claims and observations, not philsophical or theologic ones. Again, that's basic scientific method taught at any higher college research level.

We really need to look hard at these philosophical and theological questions with an eye for determining whether or not they're even worth asking. It's not that science is tiptoeing around these questions so much that they are largely irrelevant to it. The big science vs. creation argument started because religion thought it had a monopoly on what turned out to be a scientific question after all. I think that in the end all good questions are scientific. The rest are probably nonsense.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Haha, that's one of my favorite clips ever. "Science is interesting. If you don't agree, you can fuck off." Neil DeGrasse Tyson is awesome as well. They have different approaches because they're doing different things. Take Evolution for example. Many educators try to downplay the religious implications of human life being the result of gradual evolution in an attempt to sell the idea to as many people as possible, but Dawkins will say outright that he thinks that Evolution has definite Atheistic implications. That's because he's concerned more about how people think that what they think.

And what's even funnier is ANY good preacher already understands how people think and offers his view of tools for the mind. Just like dawkins tries to do.

This is all basic psychology and a human need for a belief system to cope with what they do not nor cannot understand.

Dawkins is nothing more than a prophet pushing his belief system (aka, religion). It's really funny that his copying mechanisms and prayer for him are putting down other belief systems. This makes him feel good, as he prays to his own mind, then preaches to the flock.

This is all basic psychology.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: So


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.

Scientists have faith that the answers to their question(s) exist in evidence that has not yet been observed.

Science has the tools to make those observations a reality....most of the time 🙂

Those tools being "the reliability of previous results" that you referenced before. Results observed by scientists of before, who had the same faith in the possibility of evidence that was out there not yet observed. Unless Scientists already know the answers to their questions....but I don't think you will find a scientist that will make that assertion.

Im not knocking science, nor scientists...I'm just calling it like I see it.

Out of curiosity are either one of you scientists?

If not - or even if you are - have either of you bothered to ask a scientist what their thoughts are?