Dawkins

Post Reply New Topic

Really, can you post links to the studies?

I suppose there is some truth to this. Trouble is most believers in god try to push there beliefs onto the rest of the populace, so it seems natural for someone like Dawkins to do the opposite.

there was a study suggesting that homeopathy might actually work (Inflammation Research, vol 53, p 181). it was no real clinical trial though and there was no placebo control group. also, the group of people was not representative.

anyway, the placebo effect is a well known phenomenon and if you believe in homeopathy there is a chance that it will actually work for you.

Dawkins complains, with some justification, that believers get a free pass in certain kinds of intellectual debates. Many people, including atheists do not want to be "insensitive" and insult the believers or offend them by questioning their beliefs rigorously. I do not mind calling believers superstitious. That is what they are. Sam Harris also makes the same point.

I can sympathize with someone who is a Deist, to an extent. One cannot behold the Cosmos in its glory and not ask certain questions: what is it? where did it come from? why does it exist? who or what made it? what will become of it? etc. etc. If the Deist wishes to postulate a creative force as a place holder for ignorance of the answer to these question, this is basically harmless.

But going from Deist to Theist complete with a set of strictures and moral requirements as well as a kind of intolerance for those who disbelieve or disagree, that is a different story.

ruveyn

^^ I believe once on a program he stated that anyone who sees the evidence for evolution and does not choose to believe it is either unintelligent or insane. ^^ I believe he may have used another word than unintelligent, however I am quite certain he said 'insane'. He appears to believe that he is completely correct and that there is no other possibility. A bishop once spoke before him speaking on a program of some discussion related to perhaps politics I believe (I do not believe this was related directly to religion) and stated something similar to "why is this man invited to speak here just because he as a famous imgainary friend?" ^^ Well, surely all qualification is imaginary, and those of the program decided to invite him, it was their decision, not his. ^^ The basis for my beliefs after fundamental philosophy is very much evolution. However, I also believe that animals are equal to humans of which I am not certain of Dawkin's stance. However, Dawkins appears to be closed to every other beliefs, in spite of the fact that he is no different to any other preacher of any other belief. It appears that "The God Delusion" is a bible for atheism, though I have not read this. However, I have been told of a number of the arguments in the book. Yet it is the fudamental principle of saying "I am right, you are wrong, stop being stupid". He is a naughty man I believe.

Homeopathy is utterly ridiculous - it claims that diluting something that causes an effect in the body will cause it to have the opposite effect. Homeopathic "remedies" are diluted to the point that there is not a single molecule of the original substance in a gallon of water and then mixed with an inert substance (usually glucose.) The claim is that the water somehow "spiritually remmebers" the original substance. Any effect it has is the placebo effect - James Randi on several occasions took an entire bottle of Homeopathic sleeping pills without even getting slightly drowsy.

Noticing recent news stories or traces of anti-depressants and virth control pills in the public drinking supply, if homeopathy were true we would expect a huge rise in rates of depression and pregnancy.

It does sound kinda nuts, but I have used it on my dogs, my mother only goes to a homaeopahtic vet (unless surgery is required) and it appears to work. I am not claiming to know how or why but it does appear to work. Using it on animals should negate the palcebo effect. I dont want to get into a row about it as I said it does sound ridiculous. I would be interested if you know of any studies.

Unfortunately the only studies I have come across on homeopathy and animals were on horses and apparently whatever the outcome of treatment the homeopathist had an explanation to prove that it had worked, whether it was the wrong remedy in the case of no effect, a "healing crisis" which made things seem worse, etc.

And the most probable explanation is that the pet owner is calmer for believing that something holistic and "sound" has been done, and the animal responds to their owner's decreased anxiety.

.

I can see how this could work

People believe what they can understand. Evolution is still a theory and a lot of people don't believe it's a fact. Alternative medicine works for some people but still others will say that those people are either lying or it was all in the head. It is all in the head. Why doesn't that inspire more interest to investigate that?

Back to Dawkins, he does put down agnostics too much by implying that they have no courage. He insinuates that non-atheists are delusional and should be medicated. He says that people of less intelligence are less worthy in every way. He implies much and then backs down like a little b***h when people ask him straight out about his intolerant views. You can't prove innuendos and his whole approach relies on his charisma to sway atheists to think they are smarter than the rest of the people. It's annoying because he doesn't even know of all the inner experiences of spirituality. He scoffs at spiritual people like they are akin to crack pot leprechaun seekers.

If he believes that all there is in the universe is material life, then he is delusional. How could the universe be so vast and only contain life as we know it? How could our human perceptions be relied upon to even claim to know such a thing? He says there is no proof. There are millions of people who claim to have had spiritual experiences but he says that they are all just delusional. It's all in the mind. That is how we perceive things right? Our mind is just the beginning of discovering this universe.

Hey Dent, if you're looking to pick up some homeopathic remedies on the cheap, you could always just use distilled water. It's the same thing.

It doesn't really matter whether Dawkins is angry or arrogant (I would say no to the first, yes to the second).

Why does he really make religious people so angry? Mainly because of how he stigmatizes religious believers-as irrational fools at best, and dangerous lunatics at worst. I'm not the least bit religious, but to scapegoat religion as a (let alone the) primary cause of evil and stupidity in the world is simply absurd. If Britain is any indication, the demise of organized religion will not lead to any kind of utopian rational society, but rather general apathy, shallow materialism and new-age superstition. Most people need religion, not because they are weak or foolish but because it is a source of meaning and purpose to them. Eliminating religion would not reduce the amount of tribalism, cruelty and foolishness in the world one iota-whatever Dawkins and the other New Atheists might believe.

There is probably no simple easy way to diminish all the cruelties and mindless brutalities if all the various cultures but a clear perception at the self contradictory nonsense embodied in religion and how it has no grounding in intelligence and good judgment is a viable start.

Governments have waged more wars throughout history than religions. Why not get rid of governments? Look at all the brutality that occurred in the name of patriotism.

What's most annoying about Dawkins is his superficial knowledge of history and the social sciences in general. As long as he stuck to biology he knew what he was talking about, but now he wants to be E. O. Wilson (Sociobiology) without Wilson's sensitivity and range of knowledge. This leads Dawkins to apply the reductionist yes/no standards of natural science to human belief and behavior, which is far more complex and nuanced, involving complex political, demographic and cultural issues that Dawkins' Manichean worldview won't accomodate. Hence the tedious litanies about Muslim fanaticism, evil Christian witchhunters/crusaders/inquisitors, etc...

Reading Dawkins (or his groupies), you would think that religion was responsible for everything bad that's happened since the invention of writing. Yet places where monothism is marginal, and religion is played out as a social force don't seem any more rational or tolerant. The Japanese pioneered suicide bombing in the first half of the 20th century, tend towards xenophobia, and are a breeding ground for some of the nuttiest cults (ranging from the murderous to the merely exploitive) in the world. So much for the superiority of atheistic societies. Atheists should simply accept that most people require supernatural belief of some kind of other; it seems to be a general part of human nature. Instead of trying to eradicate religion, fostering pro-social forms of belief (and weeding out the crazies) looks like a more promising approach.

Japan during WWII wasn't atheistic - they worshipped the Emperor as a god, in fact.