So, while perusing CNN, I came across this page about Dawkins. While the little snippet is pretty much a press release:
Richard Dawkins tore into religious comfort zones with his claim that God is a delusion, and it seems the British ethnologist, evolutionary biologist and author will stop at nothing to provoke intelligent debate about the truth of our existence.
His writings have inspired and angered many a reader – and now he’s back with more.
The fervent atheist and anti-creationist is often referred to as “Charles Darwin’s rottweiler.” Now, to celebrate Darwin’s bi-centenary, Dawkins has published a new book: “The Greatest Show on Earth” offers scientific evidence to back-up his own theory of evolution.
He joins us Tuesday on Connect the World so — whether you love or loathe him — don’t miss the opportunity to put Dawkins on the spot over his controversial views.
Send us your questions and we’ll select the best ones to ask him.
It is very indicative of this individual’s viewpoint, or at least that of her target audience. What really strikes me is the line “don’t miss the opportunity to put Dawkins on the spot over his controversial views.” What views does he hold as controversial which are relevant to this book? What particularly struck me, however, were the comments:
I feel sorry for this guy. Read God Delusion and it left me wondering how people like this justify their existence. Life is filled with wonder, way beyond what ‘Science’ and Dawkins choose to see.
I wonder what this person means by “life is filled with wonder”—unknowns? Amazement? Discovery? Beauty? Just ignore that most of the interesting unknowns are explored by science. Ignore the part about discoveries being done through scientific investigation. That’s all irrelevant. What matters to this individual is the feeling, not the substance.
More strange comments below
When I look at all the artworks around the World, I see that the most magnificent statues, paintings, music, etc, were inspired by one theme : God and His Love for us, poor humans. If all that is a delusion, Art, fraternity, love, self-sacrifice for others, all that becomes void. This is just Impossible ! God is rooted inside us, whomever we are, wherever we live.
Yes, it does make for wonderful artwork, mostly because the churches were the ones with all the money to pay the artists. This fluffy language defining “god” as a part of us does nothing to establish 1) what this god is or 2) if this god actually exists. Ironic how all of those in that little listing are HUMAN interactions, isn’t it?
Why is it that you never here atheists disputing the existence of unicorns, or the Great Pumpkin? Is it because these things obviously don’t exist?
Perhaps it’s because millions of people don’t believe they exist and tell us how to behave? I can, however, write an annual piece on the search for, and inability to locate, these entities, if you would have me abide by rules supposedly set forth by these fictional entities.
I think this is a prime example of concealment. Who said that God did not set evolution on its course? Creation and especially man was not created to be a static being, but all is set in a state of change and progress.
It is absurd to tie down God to an idea or observation. If we are to figure out God in his entirety in our physical limited state then he can’t be God. The true wonder is that every time an aspect of Him is observed we got lost in His majesty.
Do our opinions really change Him or change the fact that He exists or creator of everything? of course not! At the end we will all checkout of this life and make room for a better generation. This is God’s greatness in action.
Primarily, to consider evolution “progress” is blatantly false at best. Evolution is a process by which lineages of organisms survive and reproduce at differential rates. Also, why is “god” always male? The idea that successive generations are “better” is also unsubstantiated. Each generation will vary from the previous, but 1) how do you separate generations, 2) what would make them “better,” and 3) this still doesn’t demonstrate said entity exists.