Is Richard Dawkins Correct?

Question

In his series 'The Root of All Evil', Richard Dawkins states that all religion is man made and all religious preachers are just fraudsters.

Given that certain things which the roman catholic church once held to be true, such as the creation of the universe occuring exactly as described in the book of genesis, and the earth being the centre of the universe, have now been shown to be completely false, is it not the case that Professor Dawkins is right in his assertions?

Polly Peptide: You completely miss the point!

Dawkins does have a right to argue against religion on the basis that he is a scientist.

Science has shown us that the two examples of early religious dogma which I have cited in my question are both totally false.

The genesis story was blown away by Darwin as late as the 19th century and the earth as the centre of the universe myth was only finally abandoned in the 17th century after several brave souls were burnt at the stake by the roman catholic church for heretically believing that the earth was not the centre of the universe. They were proved right and the catholic church were proved wrong!

Uncle Remus: It is you who are living in a fantasy world.

Enrol at your local college and get yourself an education!

Answer 1

'The God Delusion' says it best. Mr Dawkins is dead on.

Answer 2

No, he is wrong. Science only shows what suits the theory and dismisses everything else which may prove contrary. Dawkins fails miserably to prove how the universe was created. Every great theory has to sound plausible, but that does not PROVE THE FACTS. His arguments are so generalised that they are utter rubbish, and that is disappointing coming from a man who claims to be a credible scientist.

Anyone can attack any religion, but to provide absolute and verifiable proof is a different matter. Evil comes from within the person. It is pure escapism to blame religion for something that is an inherent part of being human. But as many people, like Dawkins, want to avoid the truth that man is inherently evil then blame must be placed elsewhere. People, whether religious or not, are responsible for their own actions, but we live in an age where everyone else is responsible for what someone does - this means the buck is passed to the rest of us.

Modern psychology and counselling (research done by myself) still blames the parents for the mistakes of the children even when the children are mature adults. How far do we take this? I and 40 years old and committed a crime because of the way I was raised by my parents. Where is my responsibility? Did I hear a voice in my head telling me this was wrong before I committed the deed? Did my parents or someone else force me to commit the deed? No! No! No!

Dawkins and company have been using similar arguments throughout their careers and it never carried water in the beginning so it does not do so now. Dawkins is just 60-65% water, but do we see that? It's a fact, but who will argue against it?

Dawkins can keep his beliefs, such as thet are, and leave others alone, unless he wants to be the centre of his own little universe by being controversial just to keep his name in the public arena. Egotism has no boundaries and all publicity is good publicity.

Answer 3

If this world is anything like the one noted in the Matrix, how could you prove, knowing what the Matrix was, the true age of the Matrix???

As our universe is made of pure energy (basically light), almost exactly like the energy used to create a VR world in a computer, and that this light is combined in millions of ways to create the "physical matter" that makes us appear "real", could it therefore not be possible that the universe could be nothing more than neural interactive computer program, that was switched on yesterday, or even sometime this morning?

And like a computer game, the history, environment map, characters, the rules, and the players abilities, etc have all been written into the program by a team of gifted writers.
(Note: DNA is very similar to computer code - just much more complex than the most complex computer code ever written by the character known as "the human")

Is Dawkins right - not sure, but what I would say is this: To believe that there is no God, based upon not having viewed any absolute proof is an extremely unscientific POV, as a Good Scientist would have an open mind on such issues, until the evidence proved the non-existence of God...

Answer 4

The Genesis account of creation has not been disproven. It is true that the earth is not 6,000 years old and that it was not created in six 24-hour days, however the Bible does not teach this.

The Catholic Church may have believed that the earth was the centre of the Universe, but that also is not a Biblical teaching. That previous belief says more about the Catholic Church than it does about all of the world's religions or the Bible itself.

A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about Origin of Species: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.” Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”

It is interesting to note that Charles Darwin indicated an awareness of his theory’s limitations. In his conclusion to The Origin of Species, he wrote of the grandeur of the “view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,” thus making it evident that the subject of origins was open to further examination. The Genesis account was hardly 'blown away'.

In his book, The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.

At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins’ comment in the preface to his book: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.” But readers on the subject will find that his approach is not unique. Most other books on evolution also skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter. Thus Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cambridge University told fellow scientists: “All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was.”

As John R. Durant, a biologist, wrote in The Guardian of London: “Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science."

Answer 5

I'm not Christian, I don't believe in God. So I hugely favour science over the Bible.

However, if you were to look up the 'omega point theory' (google it), there is an amazing amount of scientific and mathematical theorisation that perhaps a God does exist.

But I'll still stick to my own beliefs for the moment. My religion doesn't claim to know how the universe came to be. I don't claim to care. I still love Christians as my fellow human beings, though, and I respect them. It's my view that everybody should be left to hold their own beliefs, and no other person has the right to try and convert anyone.

Answer 6

no, because all scientists at the time also believed those things. read the book 'Dumbology' as a start - it is probably not too hard for you.

Can you find a statement by the roman catholic church stating that the creation of the universe occured exactly as described in the book of genesis?

Answer 7

This man dawkins is a qualified scientist, and yet he writes such piffle as "The selfish gene"
Evolutionary biology is not that dissimilar to medieval theology!

Having read Science for my first degree, and later Theology, I can tell you that theology is no subject for amateurs and non-academics.

A friend of mine, a retired genetics Don, accuses Dawkins of trying to found his own religion! Indeed his ideas in evolutionary biology seem to be no more tenable than the Loch Ness monster legend.

My advice to Dawkins is that he should stick to a subject in which he supposedly knows what he is talking about.

Answer 8

No he is not right. He is just a man like veryone else, but just because he said one thing doesn't make it so; or even how many people accept and abide by his statement.

When you think logically of how the Bible was written religion and the true knowledge of God can come the way it is stated there. God must have existed first and that Adam and Eve, man's first parents knew about it and knew they were created by him.

Without that premise; any man including Adam, could create thier own story of a God. But remember that God had interaction with Adam, then, Cain, Enouch, Noah, and Abraham, and Moses and the people of Israel. And then later throught the prophets and through Jesus Christ.

Dawkins cannot argue away the existence of the Church, the history of the church, or the 3 major religons of Christainity, Islam, and Judahism, that are descendant of Abraham by faith and some by works. Dawkins cannot deny or say the beliefs that have exited for thousands of years up to today do not exist. Instead in my mind he has closed his mind to this one truth. And as such is living in a fantasy world.

Answer 9

I believe the word 'religion' means to be 'bound up'...so yes to me it is evil..anything that robs us of our freedom is wrong..that's why Jesus spoke against the religious ruler's of His day. Jesus came to set us free from this bondage---so Christ Jesus was saying it before RD(Although this statement might be pearls before swine)------
Some preachers are fraudsters, but not all...frauds are in the world...so yes RD is correct to a point, but to say all preachers are frauds, is incorrect.
I will just finish by saying; God created RD so yes he is an amazing man--a little mislead but no less amazing..all God's creation is amazing...one day you will know the truth.
Peace & Blessings

Pierce...you made me laugh..what an excellent answer...that's the answer for today, nothing can beat that one xx

My pleasure Pierce...you come up with some brilliant answers. **smiling** at it again with great satisfaction!

Answer 10

Dawkins is a scientist. He really has no business discussing religion. Science is interested in things we can see and observe and measure. Since we can't observe and measure God, science doesn't apply.

Also, the two statements don't necessarily corroborate each other. It is entirely possible that religion is a construct of the mind, but that doesn't make it any less real. Faith is about believing in things that you can't prove. It is enough to be faithful... you don't have to defend it.

That said... even in the world of science, Dawkins is considered kind of a jerk. His selfish gene theory is an interesting take on behavioural genetics, but that's all it is. Almost everything he's done since then has been worthless to science and humanity. Ignore him.

Answer 11

Of course he is correct ! thousands if not millions of human beings have been slaughtered in the name of fictitious religion, there will be no World peace until all religion disappears from the face of the planet ?
R O N