It's a pity that many creationists and fundamentalist type Christians dismiss evolutionary biology so readily.
It's also a pity that atheists dismiss biblical doctrine so readily too.
I enjoy listening too and reading Richard Dawkins , aptly nicknamed by Stephen Jay Gould as "Britain's most pious atheist."
I've been recently going through Dawkins first and most popular book The Selfish Gene.
My copy is the 30 year anniversary edition with an updating introduction written by Dawkins in 2006.
In it he laments how this book has always remained more popular than his later creations and, despite being first written in 1976, it has not become severely outmoded ans superseded.
He then shared his second thoughts on the original title in that it gives an inadequate description of the contents of the book. He proceeds to stress that the emphasis should be on he word Gene in the title and not on what is more commonly the word Selfish. Other titles that could have been used being:
The Immortal GeneThe Altruistic Vehicle
These alternate titles refer to the concepts of vehicles and replicators and the unit of selection.
Simply summarized the organism is the vehicle that carries the genes or replicator.
What I find intriguing in describing these aspects of biological evolution in this way it is not dissimilar from some biblical doctrinal concepts.
Allow me to illustrate:
The
geneis the means whereby geneticinformationisreplicatedor passed on from cell to cell and from one generation to the next. I can be therefore be consideredimmortalsince theinformationsurvives the death of theorganism. Hence alternative title 1,The Immortal GeneThe
organismis thevehicleby which thegene"gets around". The vehicle is mortal in the sense that it has a finite lifespan.The
geneisselfishdoing all in its power to see that it gets replicated and passes on its information. Theorganismisselfishto ensure it survives but as thevehiclealso balancesaltruismfor the benefit of thegene. For example parenting takes a lot out of the individuals, but they do it in order to replicate copies of themselves. Hence alternative title 2,The Altruistic Vehicle
It's not difficult to find a doctrinal parallel:
The organism, in this case the physical body is the vehicle that houses the immortal spirit. The spirit is the replicator in the sense that by surviving the death of the physical body it is the means whereby personality information persists into the afterlife.
That personality information will continue to persist through the change that is the resurrection also.
We do not know how many states the spirit has passed through prior to residing in the physical body acting as a temporary vehicle but one can see many personality differences even in infants raised in similar conditions.
The body and human nature are selfish but must find a balance between selfish interests and the development of the spirit. It's in discovering this balance between selfishness and altruism that a reasonable degree of spiritual growth is accomplished and that a more positively developed personality is passed on to the next phase of out eternal progression.
It is also intriguing to note that the "immortal gene" remained invisible to scientific detection for much of history but was inferred to those that were paying attention.
The "immortal spirit" remains undetected but is similarly inferred to those that are paying attention.
So I guess my question is:
Why should the creationist take such exception to evolutionary biology's vehicles and immortal replicators and why should atheists take such exception to bodies and so far undetected immortal spirits?
This is the first piece in quite some time that made me even contemplate for even one second, that perhaps there was something more than thousands of years of insecurity and ignorance fueled b_llsh_t behind the creationist beliefs, and while i do think your argument really does have some value to "them" [the creationists], and have by no means been led to believe that there IS an actual spirit,
i most primarily continue to be shocked, living in a society that has collectively achieved such amazing feats in terms of understanding the parts of the world that we can understand, which have resulted in essentially every verifiable truth and technological utility that we possess - while still remaining a world in which perhaps half of the human population believes in what appears to be truly supernatural stories.
I tell my children that they are 50% "me", "50% their mother, and yet "100%" themselves.
Between what we are born as, meaning the sum of what the replicators become when they combine with one another, and the sum of everything which surrounds us [Nurture/Experience], is where things get truly confusing.
"What are We?", when there's literally nothing that can be "found", between our genetic book, and everything that surrounds us which is essentially beyond our control.
We tend to go with the assumption that "God" is "Just" Everything,
that "he/she/it" did something akin to the commission of altruistic suicide at the big bang, [in accordance with the popular cliche which tells us, "that to know if someone loves you, set it free, and if it returns, we can be assured"],
and that, to our knowledge atm, we are the only things in the universe, which, though we cannot violate the laws of physics as we understand them,
are not limited to simply behaving according to those laws unconsciously.
It seems most likely, that whatever the spirit is, there is just one, and that we are conscious manifestations of that spirit, contained in the body, which the youniverse conceived as a vehicle to it's own discovery.
I do like to ask "believers": "What are YOU, if not God". [we're not clay]
Not that many posts here really make me Think very much at all about anything beyond the crypto/blockchain/technological spheres.
Alx
Your work shocks the world of steemit, incredible. !!
I am not a big fan of Dawkins simply because I think there are better thinkers than he in the field i.e. Sam Harris. However, I have read some of his work.
You may also enjoy watching Jordan Peterson's biblical lectures on the YouTubes. He approaches the stories in the Bible (Genesis thus far) from a psychological/evolutionary/biological perspective, and while not a Christian, he is not willing to outright dismiss metaphysical explanations. I am not sure where he would fall on Dawkins scale.
If you were to take Peterson's ideas and whirl them around with C. S. Lewis et. al. I suspect you could come to some acceptable doctrinal conclusions that would do no damage to biblical truth.
Have you listened to Peterson on Harris’ podcast? He was actually on twice. I only heard the second one. (Heard the first was a bit difficult.) Seems like an interesting guy, but I’d say that I tended to appreciate Harris’ perspective more.
I heard the same thing. I have not watched it yet, but I will be. At the end of the day as a Christian Theist I find both of their conclusions untenable at the end of the day for the reason that I believe they have to construct ultimate meaning from nothing which is not actually ultimate meaning, but merely temporal illusory “meaning” which is the same as saying no meaning.
Still, I like to engage with their perspectives in order to learn from them so that I may look for problems in my worldview, and at the same time bolster it in or to provide better apologetics for it.
I’d have to ask what it is you mean when you use the word “meaning”. Surely “nothing” has no meaning. But life and existence are not “ nothing”.
Looking back at what you wrote, I see that you referred to “ultimate meaning”. I’ve never really understood that view - that without God (or something like it) to supply meaning, there is no meaning left of any consequence. But we all supply the meaning of our lives.
Meaning, when you come down to it, is “values”. And I think it’s both possible and necessary to have values in a world without God.
I have been in circles with folks about this before. At the end of the day it usually ends as an agree to disagree situation. That being said, I have never been able to wrap my mind around the idea that it is possible and necessary to have values in a universe without a Creator. It seems disingenuous to me.
Without something more concrete to base epistemology on than energy/matter, said epistemology is in itself meaningless and cannot be "known"...hell, the word epistemology is meaningless.
By "in the end" I mean exactly that. When the universe is cold and dead (or whichever version of the probable outcomes comes to fruition) these keys I am pressing have no more "meaning" than if I rape children or give billions of dollars and countless hours of time to orphans and widows.
We can play a game in which the rules we make up say that our constructs and actions have meaning because they affect us in our current time (along with other constructed illusory rules...like time, definitions of words...and words themselves etc.), but they are nothing more than determined (or even chance if you prefer) organizations of energy/matter that will cease, and again, are ultimately meaningless and therefore currently meaningless in any real sense.
It seems much more honest to admit this in the face of an apathetic universe, and further admit that we would rather not shoot ourselves (for some reason we cannot explain) so we choose to play the game (whatever choice is).
"...we supply the meaning of our lives" I have decided the meaning of my life is to punch you in the face and defecate on sidewalks. Who are you to determine that this is not "true" or what "true" means. Once "meaning" and "necessary" and "values" come into the conversation it becomes problematic to the point of being untenable in my estimation. These words cannot even have a meaning without an outside "Form" if you will.
I think Francis Schaeffer's ideas about The Line of Despair trace some of the consequences of atheism and its resulting philosophies quite well. I posted an old blog post with an image created by a prof of mine based on Schaeffer's Line of Despair. It is NOT in depth and thus reading Schaeffer is needed, but it gives the gist.
The bottom line is that human beings are not comfortable with the conclusion that there is no meaning without a preexisting source so they will play a game rather than admit to a meaningless life lived for no reason or a bullet to the head...especially if they have children or a spouse they "love"...whatever the hell that means!
Dammit, this would have been a good post :)
"When the universe is cold and dead (or whichever version of the probable outcomes comes to fruition) these keys I am pressing have no more "meaning" than if I rape children or give billions of dollars and countless hours of time to orphans and widows."
Never in my life, when considering a choice of how to act, have I weighed this choice against the possibility or impossibility of a cold dead universe. I do not see why, if the universe will end in 15 trillion years, this should have any effect on whether or not I murder or help orphans.
"The bottom line is that human beings are not comfortable with the conclusion that there is no meaning without a preexisting source..."
I don't disagree that this idea makes people uncomfortable; and it's certainly true that making a choice on values, rather than to have them handed to you by an omniscient god, is the harder thing. This does not, however, mean it's impossible; nor does it mean that the easier thing is therefore true.
"Without something more concrete to base epistemology on than energy/matter, said epistemology is in itself meaningless"
Then again, I can't think of anything more "concrete" than a materialistically determined universe; and the posit of an immaterial, infinite god is the least concrete thing possible to the imagination. :) Epistemology simply means the study of knowledge. I see no reason that a god concept is necessary to make such a study.
When someone asks, "What is the meaning of life?" I am befuddled by this question. Not because I do not know the answer, but because the question seems beside the point. You are the meaning of your life. All values follow from that. Does that mean you should rape and murder people? Well, no. Because in doing so, you jeopardize your life - you are an individual who is part of a group of individuals. If you would have respect and safety, you must grant that to those around you.
The concept of a god can just as easily be used to justify and demand murder and genocide. See the Old Testament.
Anyway, that's all I've got for now. :)
This seems to be a statement that says, "meaning is meaningless because it is subject". It leads to a situation wherein there are some "objective" things, but what they mean is subjective which is the same as saying they are meaningless and therefore not truly objective.
It does in fact mean that it is impossible to have objectively true values. If then one's values are not objectively true, but rather subjective constructs of complex energy/matter machines, they can be changed as needed or even as desired.
I believe you are misunderstanding my use of the word concrete. By this I mean unchangeable. That is to say that there is an objective "ought". The universe is apathetic to our desire to survive or not survive. It alone can provide no basis for objectively true moral values that stand alone despite the current circumstances.
This is an extremely limited definition of epistemology. Part of this study is "how do we know that we can know". Even arguing this position from a purely atheistic perspective is problematic. Make no mistake, both the atheist and the theist simply cannot leave the starting line without certain presuppositions which are ultimately empirically unprovable. The questions that arise after these presuppositions are also important, and I would argue that we are actually discussing one of those "after" questions now.
This may be the most telling comment you have made. What if I would rather NOT have respect and safety? For the atheist values and morals are subjective. They are made up based on a presupposition that life has meaning because there is life which is itself unprovable. There will not always be life from an atheistic view of the cosmos. This means at some point even this made up meaning will cease to exist. This of course means it is temporal and ultimately it has no lasting value whatsoever. This leads us back to the beginning of the circle. You can choose to play the game (existentialism) in order to avoid the reality (nihilism), but it is indeed illusory, empty, and ultimately meaningless.
Let us assume you are correct and there is no God. When the universe is cold and dead (regardless of if you want to base your values on the fact that it will be) what will the meaning of this conversation be? What will the meaning of your life be? What will the meaning of the human race, or the Earth, or the cold dead universe for that matter be? There will be none.
Let us assume I am correct and there is a God. In that case all the questions above will have an answer. It will not have been some made up game of values, morals, and meaning brought on by a certain arrangement of energy and matter that served no purpose.
I am not particularly well educated, well read, or intelligent so there is not a lot more I can add.
We will probably continue to go in circles... meaning is the subjective glue we use to fill in the spaces between the objective (I just made that up). What I mean is that meaning assumes a perspective that creates/determines the meaning... I’m typing on my iPad right now, and I feel very restricted. 😃 I’ll respond further once I have the freedom of my keyboard.
I've been enjoying Peterson's perspective and different angle on things. Just another angle to approach the complexities from without getting to dogmatic.
Wow..... Xo thought provoking..... I am a Christian as well as a microbiologist and specialised in genetic engineering...... This information just got me thinking beyond my defined scope..... Great work
@gavvet Nice
Electricity is required to run any device.Even after the battery of mobile is over, it keeps the data store in it.
I don’t agree with the altruism part in there. The whole process has nothing to do with altruism - which doesn’t exist at all. The least the vehicle gets from what feels like an altruistic action is a good feeling. Moreover the information in the vehicle is the same whether it is a parent or a child, therefore any action towards the other can’t be consider as form of altruism neither.
Thus said, the whole concept of development of spirit kinda falls apart. Our body does actions based on the information, but whether the information undergoes any form of upgrade, or the vehicle has to go through similar situations in the new vehicles cannot be said so easily.
Rule of thumb implies that the information from the information (sounds weird:D) is transmitted manually - from one vehicle to the other one.
Otherwise great article! If every christian tried to discuss the matter like you do. I only know handful believers like that...
I study science and at the same time I am Catholic, I think that between the two worlds there is a balance, it must not be renegated neither side nor the other, because if it is seen objectively I have impartial, when asking a believer, who I believe the world will tell you that it was God and if you ask for an explanation he will tell you that it is a divine being that excites and excites forever, that can not be touched and created at will, the same happens with the atheist, if you ask I can tell you what was the evolution or energy, I will say that you excite and excist, it is intangible and is created at will, my humble one-sided opinion
First, I love Dawkins, and The Selfish Gene really made me look at the idea of evolution in a whole new light. (I was also introduced to the Necker Cube in his introduction, which is a great graphical example of how different perspectives can make the same thing appear entirely different.)
And yes, people read the title, and they think it's about a gene that makes one selfish, rather than the idea that it's genes themselves which are acting in a way to propagate themselves.
However, I think it's a bit of a stretch to connect the idea of an "immortal gene" to any immortal soul concept in religion. Here's where I think it has to break down:
I think for most religious folk, the soul is the self. While the physical body ceases to exist, they believe that their "self" - everything "non-physical" that makes you you - is what goes on to paradise or hell for eternity. In fact, if your soul was not your "self", hell wouldn't hold any fear, and heaven wouldn't hold any promise.
But the selfish gene is not in any way like your "self". The main reason for this is that no full genetic code survives the next generation. It's always cut in half, since every child gets half from his mom, and half from his dad. That's why Dawkins calls it "The Selfish Gene" rather than "The Selfish DNA Strand".
I think it's very easy to see why fundamentalist theists are antagonistic toward evolutionary ideas - it's because these ideas contradict religious assumptions.
Good post though!
Lets not stretch the metaphor to far... of course it will break down under detailed scrutiny. The parallel here is simply that the high level principles are similar, and hence why should the other side view the others point of view with such disdain.
Perhaps disdain is unfortunate. However, on one side you have people who believe that their beliefs determine whether or not they spend eternity in heaven or in hell; and they are also tasked with sending as many people as they can to heaven by instilling correct knowledge. This task too determines whether they go to heaven or to hell. These people, then, are very motivated to be antagonistic toward ideas that conflict with their mission. And, based on their premises, rightly so. In fact, I think they should be much more antagonistic to those ideas.
On the other side - the non-theists - you have people who do not have a belief in a god or godly things. It would not make sense for them to grant any intellectual validity to ideas that are anchored in such things. No more than you would grant intellectual validity to a child's belief that Santa will pass him by because he has no chimney. Should we feel "disdain" for this child? Perhaps not. But we should certainly feel disdain for the belief. Or, if not disdain, it would at least be immoral and unintelligent to grant it any benefit of doubt. The only time we should reconsider is if the child grows up, goes exploring the North Pole, and finds a warehouse of elves making toys.
:)
A lot of christians obviously wouldnt want to believe in the evolution theory because apparently it deviates from the creation story. On the other hand ,atheists wouldnt also believe in the creation story because they do not believe in the presence of God. Now I feel that the best way to combat this issue is to strike a balance and like you said ,"find a doctrinal parallel" in all of this. But this would only be possible if we are ready to ask the right questions and keep an open mind. Cheers !
That's a thought-provoking comment I haven't heard anyone else make. I'm a Christian, but do not believe the Bible is to be interpreted literally, nor that we should ignore what science establishes. It's worthwhile to consider all points of view before taking a position based on facts and logic. Unfortunately, too many people at both ends of the spectrum refuse to do that. The same can be said for political discourse. I wish we could go back to a time where people could debate the issues and it was recognized that reasonable people could disagree. Just because someone has a different point of view doesn't make him or her a bad or evil person.
nice follow you thanks.
Because both sides are full of complete ignorance and stupidity. If any of them spent some time thinking for themselves they might do some research and experiments for proof of evidence, rather than blindly following some silly belief system.
very nice blog follow you blog and vote thanks.
I never understood the animosity that many evangelicals have towards the theory of evolution. I can agree it needs tweaking, but I don't think it's validity questions the existence of God. An intelligent being would have put processes in place so that its creation could continue growing and adapting.
what if we all are actually living forever inside our immortal genes and have been living the entire history just in different persons at a time will continue to do so in the future and forever from bacteria to cavemen, and from cavemen to today's humans and from today's humans to something else in the far future!!
disposable survival idea book - dawkins delectably composed. As usual, Uncle dawkins tells the judges before the book that he ought not have any significant bearing the aftereffects of his compositions to individuals. what's more, on the off chance that I don't recollect the purpose behind it, it clarifies it in the past area of the most wary. it is the other component of the world that can reproduce itself for a large number of years with the exception of the qualities, which says that the religion is the least complex compound "mem". unexpectedly differentiates the improvement of the cerebrum with the qualities; qualities make the mind build up its capacity to learn, translate, and anticipate to amplify its odds of being. in any case, as the life form's control goes to the cerebrum, the control of the qualities diminishes.It is a hypothesis that inquiries what is genuine/what is propagated. it is a fascinating inquiry, regardless of whether it is from a levelheaded summon that can not depend on the physical presence of choices made by people in certain pathways, or on account of the hereditary cosmetics that can start from the physiology and lessen the will to the degree of creature sense in one place.
Biblical doctrine are what guide us in attaining a good christian life. as children of God we should learn to draw unbelievers who think that there is no God back to christ. A man is expected to die once and after that judgement, so ends our mortal life. There is life after death and that is what we should all thinkabout. Science cannot explain the wonders of God, because he is a mystery.
I should get that book to.. The selfish gene..i believe it would help me
What are you even talking about lol.
Altruism and selflessness that benefit the group are developed in individual organisms as a mechanism to increase group success. Genes, changes at the epigenetic level in the parents and environmental factors before, during, and after pregnancy and the birth of a child influence their behavior and personality. There doesn't need to be an "immortal spirit" that dictates how your baby acts.
Yes, the spark of life itself is rather interesting and seems a lot harder to bring back than put out, but I'm not sure you're really getting the main points of the book. And science on the matter has come a loooong way since 2006.
Anti-science rhetoric is part of their anti-critical thinking stance, leaders want followers to be nice and obedient and that's just their way of making sure everyone in the flock stays nice and ignorant to the fact they're being fleeced. There's a lot of interplay between politics and evangelical christians for a while now and it's impossible to understand their "movement" without knowing who has been empowering them and their ideals and why.
I think the immortal spirit means what you call the spark of life. Most religions will tell you that all spirits are connected with the root source as god.
It's a metaphysical way of talking about existence, or the fact of being. Interesting fact, the hebrew word YWHW or whatever means 'he who is'...
There's just one problem with the word science today. It's changed from being pure facts such as math or physical laws, basically the STEM field, to studies that are voted democratically such as economy, psychology etc. I use the word studies on purpose. Yes those are 'sciences' in common language, but those are theories that are even less likely to accurate. The STEM field is complex enough, now add the human factor and the philosophy behind why we do things and you find answers that can be 'proven' in both ways, it depends just on how you present (and collect) the stats and facts
Oh man don't even get me started on politics within science and the publish or perish ecosystem caused by how they seek funding. STEM is cool and all but because of how society is constructed now there's little to no critical thought put into how advances in the field will affect society at large, largely because doing so would put a dent into the profits of corporations who benefit from said advances. Take philosophy or sociology for instance. Are they well-funded fields? Hell no. Mostly because anything real that comes out of any thought put into the field would tell you that the direction we're headed as a species is going to hurt us in the long run, and that is detrimental to next quarter's profits, so good riddance you, we're going to label you a pseudo-intellectual, as we don't need that gibberish 'round these parts.
I have not read this book so I am responding your discussion.
I would agree thay it is a shame that there's not more criticism for this book but I don't rhink it's from a lack of scientific evidence. The concept of a "spirit" or "soul" is a cognitive construct and although it has taken a while to get the technology right to do so, we can now observe how the brain works in real time and have solid enough understanding to give very reasonable explanations for any "spirit" phenomena like near-death experiences.
The fact that these discoveries are suppressed is due to a religious mindset that demands belief beyond evidence. Just as we understand that people that came before us believed foolish claims like thunder was the gods fighting, we appreciate that the unknown has a "magical" quality, but we must strive to always be challenging our beliefs in the face of well-controlled, repeatable scientific evidence.
intaligent post man ...i am your new follower but am allreday see your all post .....your every post quality really amazing but something worng .....
i think you need to boost your post its not promoting its a system ....
i think you can vote some people then everybody do follow you and also upvote and resteem .....best of luck and again your every post is amazing....
Post is more good . related with education.
We can’t help everyone, but everyone can help someone.
Lo bueno de la vida es que van a haber criterios y creencias diferentes, que maravilloso es ver con asombro las culturas y creencias de otros países. Recordemos que cada persona tiene su punto de vista y defienden lo que para ellos es valioso y verdadero; así para nosotros sea atroz .
Very good post ...
Controversy has always arisen when trying to please two communities (Christians and Atheists) that have a very different point of view with respect to creation and evolution ... I am a biologist, Venezuelan, believer, but scientifically it is finally my duty " try "to seek a logical, scientific explanation without distancing myself from my beliefs in particular.
I am a Cristian but I agree with all this!
Love to read anything about science . Good post dear . thank you so much . I just appreciate your post as usual . @gavvet
The problem with Dawkins is that when you hear him interviewed he comes off somewhat triggered and pompous, tilting at windmills as it were. While there are those who deny evolution or don't understand evolution and think the earth is 5000 years old if you look at the Catholic Church their official stance is that the universe began with the big bang and that things evolve so clearly science and faith are not mutually exclusive. The catholic church actually operates a couple of large observatories and conducts scientific research. I often think that atheists need to study quantum physics more.
Post you good. Nice blog
Vote you good
Thanks for the excellent post and sharing
Your post very nice bro I like it and thank you for sharing so please visit in my blog 👉@mdraihanhkn
Energy can’t be created, just altered...similarly gene can be replicated... Therefore we should believe in eternity and something that has existed without ever being created, that may be outside the laws of physics. Can Something Come from Nothing? just ask this simple question to the atheist....
good job
I impress to read the book "THE SELFISH GENE" writing by Richard Dawkins.The great writer. This outstanding post.
very sturdy, throwaway survival concept book - dawkins scrumptiously written. As always, Uncle dawkins tells the judges in front of the book that he should not apply the results of his writings to people. and if I do not remember the reason for it, it explains it in the previous section of the most skeptical. it is the other element of the world that has the ability to replicate itself for thousands of years except for the genes, which says that the cult is the simplest compound "mem". ironically contrasts the development of the brain with the genes; genes cause the brain to develop its ability to learn, interpret, and predict to maximize its chances of being. but as the organism's control goes to the brain, the control of the genes diminishes.It is a theory that questions what is true / what is perpetuated. it is an interesting question, whether it is from a rational command that can not rely on the physical existence of decisions made by humans in certain pathways, or because of the genetic makeup that can originate from the physiology and reduce the will to the extent of animal instinct in one place.
With my little wisdom, both atheist and the so called spiritual beings(Christians) have one thing in common which is; the Believe in something and in Nothing.
Immortal Gene remained invisible because science was looking in the wrong place; Evolution of man. Those paying attentions i would like to refer to as the Enlightened e.g Monks, Tajs, some pastors and Imaam's as the case maybe.
I like the way you think. For the subject at hand I say to each his own as neither side matters at all. The fabric of the universe is electric and we are but flecks of the source encased in the bodily vehicles here to experience this reality. Like grains of sand spread out all over the Earth we are separate but yet one. One day in the end, we all find our way back to the source from whatever reality we came from last.
Well, i didn't want to make a biased comment as a christian who still believes in science.
thanks a lot @gavvet your valuable informative post you are doing really great job just keep doing that I look forward your next post
Good question.. This information educate all christians and as well as atheists.
Very mind blowing thoughts you have here @gavvet. Worthy of upvote. Thanks for this never knew gene was that useful to understand why we do what we do
You may also enjoy watching Jordan Peterson's biblical lectures on the YouTubes. He approaches the stories in the Bible (Genesis thus far) from a psychological/evolutionary/biological perspective, and while not a Christian, he is not willing to outright dismiss metaphysical explanations. I am not sure where he would fall on Dawkins scale.
Why can't the atheists and the christians get along? Because they are both stuck in their dogma.
Christians do not believe in reincarnation. Why? Because the Council of Nicea wrote it out of the bible. (just an example of belief shaping)
Why do christians despise macro-evolution? Because it disproves their beliefs.
Why do atheists believe in macro-evolution? Because anything else disproves their beliefs.
The problem is that neither of them are correct, so no truth will ever be found in either camp. The christians do not even know their own bible. (and that vatican makes sure it stays that way) And atheists don't know enough science to support their ideas.
And Hawkins... is leading the scientific community down a trail away from knowing anything about the universe. i.e. The big bang is an aweful theory. One that will be completely disproven when we get to watch a galaxy being formed.
This post hit me straight to my heart. I am grateful for that kind of work. Especially because we live in times when a lot of people have illusion about their knowledge.
I'm a Christian and a scientist. I don't think that the Bible should be interpreted literally. Every person has a right to his beliefs and opinions!
science fact,evolution
Religion is an opium of Mass said by Karl Marx. People follow it blindly that's why Marx said so.
Verily there are some hidden clues for those who do want to learn the myth of Nature. Agreed upon this point,
By the way Richard Dawkins always go above my head :P
I love this post.
Thanks for this post. Have you seen this debate between Dawkins and Deepak Chopra?
One from the best post !! I like your beautiful work!! Thank you for the hard job!!
One from the best post !! I like your beautiful work!! Thank you for the hard job!!
Obviously they are not exempted. But "truth" (a tricky word given that it's a wholly subjective "thing") is often a paradox, not a black or white thing. Evolution is undeniable, yet that doesn't mean we were not created by a higher intelligence (even other species), actually you can find lots of evidence to support it, same as you can find tons of evidence dismantling Darwinism. I'm no sage, just a healthy doubter :) Great article @gavvet! 100% upvote
Your posts are just outstanding. You nailed it :)