But when a group of Sydney University (Australia) academics, including a historian, sign a public statement saying that Jesus Christ is "one of the great figures of history" and that his claims to be Son of God "bear up under closest scrutiny", this is a gross abuse of their position. But when Richard Dawkins uses his position as an Oxford professor to pontificate on his atheistic religion and related philosopical matter outside HIS field (animal behaivor), that is a responsible use of academic freedom?
2007-01-26 06:04:00 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It could be because they're wrong.
"his claims to be Son of God" When did he ever say that? In the bible he constantly denies it. Which means the scientists are over stepping their bounds and making things up.
2007-01-26 06:14:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Tell me what the last word on page 126 of "The God Delusion" is, and then I will be interested in your opinion of Dawkins.
Do I love it? No. I respect it, though. It is not an easy book to read. It is not dumbed-down for anyone's benefit, and it contains words that I have never seen, do not know how to pronounce, and have to look up to find the definition. For me, that's new. I am not being arrogant, I am stating a fact. I have spent my entire life studying at the best schools in this country, and I had to read many of the paragraphs several times before I could understand what was being stated, not because Dawkins is vague, but because I was new to his area of expertise. His work is well-researched, it contains accurate quotes that are presented in context, and it is intellectually honest. He admits that certain things are not known, but argues that we cannot use "God" to fill in the gaps. I see nothing wrong with that.
I have a strong, extensive academic background, but my family has never seen me struggle with a book like I struggled with the first few chapters of "The God Delusion". I thought I was pretty smart until I read that, and I respect Richard Dawkins for his intelligence, which is greater than mine, his knowledge, which is more extensive than mine, and his honest treatment of what is an emotionally-charged and controversial topic.
2007-01-26 06:13:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
there is not any evidence god loves Dickie. there is not any evidence any flavour of god exists... “once you've "major" evidence helping your god, lay it out - yet word that the way you experience once you seem at domestic dogs or sunsets, or conversations you had with your self, or your lack of ability to describe some thing any incorrect way do no longer represent evidence.” “do not ignore that: objectives aren't any further evidence. Wishful wondering isn't evidence. Logical fallacies aren't any further evidence. own revelation isn't evidence. Illogical conclusions aren't any further evidence. Disproved statements aren't any further evidence. Unsubstantiated claims aren't any further evidence. Hallucinations/delusions aren't any further evidence. tips that's ambiguous isn't evidence. The Universe would not care what you've self belief in. documents that calls for a particular concept isn't evidence. tips that won't be able to be verified isn't evidence. tips that won't be able to be falsified isn't evidence. Experiments with inconclusive effects aren't any further evidence. tips that's in user-friendly words knowable by technique of a privileged few isn't evidence. Experiments which aren't any further and won't be able to be duplicated by technique of others aren't any further evidence. the finished thing about technology is that it would not ask on your faith, in user-friendly words your eyes.” ~
2016-12-03 02:10:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dawkins supports his positions with hard science. He doesn't claim to have the truth, he has come to his position by scrutinising the alleged proofs of God's existence and dismantling them thoroughly.
I would accept his position on evolution rather than an historian's position of Jesus being Son of God. I have a history degree and can tell you that no responsible historian would ever rule on supernatural dogma.
2007-01-26 06:13:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Dawkins does not rant (unlike you) and check out the title of his Professorship. (hint its nothing to do with animal behaviour)
2007-01-26 06:10:30 · answer #5 · answered by fourmorebeers 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is never going to be possible to convert every human being and that`s a sad fact,people likr this will go on living in denial untill the bitter end,but what shock when they open their eyes on the face of the God that they spent a lifetime denying,I have only pity for them.
2007-01-26 06:13:06 · answer #6 · answered by Sentinel 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
People can say anything they want but ultimately one needs to look at the arguments, not the name associated with those arguments and Dawkins's arguments are sound. You can rave against Dawkins all you want, it doesn't detract from the validity of his arguments.
2007-01-26 06:12:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Hello STEPHEN M.. :)
I do not agree with Mr. Richard Dawkin's..but he is in my heart and my prayers.. :)
In Jesus Most Precious Name..
With Love..In Christ.. :)
2007-01-26 06:14:05 · answer #8 · answered by EyeLovesJesus 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Religion can be described perfectly by the principles of animal behavior.
Or did you some how think your consciousness somehow made you no longer an animal?
2007-01-26 06:09:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Satan has a foot hold in his life!
2007-01-26 06:18:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋