Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?

It appears the 'genius' Dawkins is now open to the idea of a higher being.

He said:A serious case could be made for a deistic God.

This was surely remarkable. Here was the arch-apostle of atheism, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, saying that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force. A creator. True, he was not saying he was now a deist; on the contrary, he still didn't believe in such a purposeful founding intelligence, and he was certainly still saying that belief in the personal God of the Bible was just like believing in fairies. Nevertheless, to acknowledge that ‘a serious case could be made for a deistic god’ is to undermine his previous categorical assertion that ...all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection...Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe....

Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet. Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?

www.freerepublic.com...

I heavy blow to all those who have believed and used his views in arguments and debates about God/a God.

I guess his first book was written for the reason i suspected;he wanted to make himself lots of money and get himself some fame.

reply to post by jakyll


Hmm... I wonder if it's another case of hearing what you want to. Kind of like they do about evolution, or criticisms of the bible. I wonder what RD has to say on the matter?

Genuinely interesting. Although the point about some of his attack being now Jesus-specific seemed strange and again it really does seem like Dawkins is much more open to attacking Christianity than the likes of Islam or Hinduism.

I wonder how Anthony Flew feels about this. I wonder how far Dawkins will move in this particular direction in the future. It would be weird if the Brights and other atheists, many of whom would only have found articulation through Dawkins' work, will eventually feel the need to distance themselves from Dawkins? How many who were swayed by Dawkins' previous arguments will be swayed by any possible pro-Deistic arguments he might make in the future?

I'd like to have seen this myself.

Dawkins appeared in the movie "Expelled" with Ben Stein. The movie is the scientific validity of asking the question "Is there Intelligent Design." It seems the scientific community is extremely resistant to even allowing the mention of it in class rooms. (Just rent the movie and watch it. It's worth your time.)
In the movie, Stein actually got Dawkins to admit that Intelligent Design was a possiblity, after he had spent several minutes explaining his atheistic views.

It's funny, I've recently been thinking about Dawkins' views in light of the changes I've personally undergone in the past year and a half. There for awhile, I was very pro Dawkins. I've been wondering if he too was changing somehow...if he was also experiencing strange things that made him question his views of reality.

I've gone through many changes regarding my beliefs since childhood - I was born into Christianity, later baptized, and then I progressively grew distant from religion entirely.

During high school I considered the Bible as a metaphor describing the universe and our evolution - a simplistic guide to reality and how to live, yet both science and religion could co-exist equally.

In college, I became more philosophical in my views of reality - I eventually leaned heavily towards Existentialism, and my outlook became very dark. The Bible and religion gradually became farcical to me. Daniel Dennett's views on consciousness affected me greatly during this time.

After leaving university, I began to read more of Dawkins, Ray Kurzweil, and Stephen Pinker. I saw beauty in what they were saying, and I distanced myself further from religion (and even spirituality). In hindsight I now look upon their views of reality as cold and clinical...almost robotic. My view of the world was very materialistic, as though we were all merely complex machines derived from random chaotic occurrences and driven by some sort of unconscious yet decisive evolutionary process.

The last few years have flipped all this upside down for me. Almost daily I experience (or have simply begun to notice) strange things - synchronicities of a magnitude beyond that which I consider to be mere coincidences. Much of what I experience goes far beyond exceptional pattern recognition, it extends into intuition - something which does not exist in the scientific realm. The instances are too many and are too varied to name, however the affect they've had on me is life-changing.

Since many people seem to be experiencing synchronicities more and more (or are at least talking about them more), I also wondered if any hardcore skeptics and scientists were experiencing anything out of the ordinary repeatedly that might be altering their views.

I wonder if Dawkins has had any personal experiences that might have made him change his mind about God, a universal intelligence, or a creator. He always seemed to be the kind of person that would never change, given his age, his intelligence, and his following. I am very surprised (and delighted) that he would consider anything beyond his atheistic viewpoint.

reply to post by kettlebellysmith


actually he and several other atheists were tricked into taking part in the film

and were nicely editted to prove what he(the director) wanted to prove,

when pushed he said that its possible "aliens could have seeded all life on earth, we dont have any proof so its just as possible as god did it"*or words to that effect*,

we have no proof for god but this does not disprove him, but the lack of evidence for any god dispite the number of and ages of various religeons implies the chances that god exists are so tiny, there almost certainly is no god ..which gets shortend for easy use to 'no god'

so for an atheist to admit thier might be a god isnt really that big a deal, its just the odds that they exist are so mind bendingly slim its easier to ignore it

it also seems the premise for the documentary that christans were bieng persecuted out of scientific work for thier beliefs was wrong as well, it seems 1/2 thier claims were simply made up and the other half twisting the truth so far it nearly snapped

a) the news paper sacked me ...i just happened to continue writting for them for several years by erm....accident

b) i was sacked for writing a pro ID paper ...... i was told i was no longer needed at the end of my contract months before i wrote that paper admittedly and the fact i was bad at my job may in some way have helped but really it was the id paper i wrote

maybe it should have been called "Expelled:no intellegence used"
www.expelledexposed.com... see it get ripped apart here and Dawkins has a few nice things to say about its misrepresentation here

even the anti-defamation league have a go at it o_0

richarddawkins.net...


ill wait till ive seen comments from Dawkins and/or see the debate or the transcripts before jumping to a conclusion

but yeah it is odd a christian and an athiest debating reliegon didnt start using the quaran or the torrah or the vedas to prove thier points ........

maybe if he was debating a muslim his lack of mentioning the bible would show just how more likley he is to attack islam then he is christianity, judaism, hinduism

like here
richarddawkins.net...

uk.youtube.com...

look not a mention of christianity or hinduism while he talks on islam he is shameless!!


[edit on 25/10/08 by noobfun] x 4 spelling, adding links etc etc ^_^

[edit on 25/10/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 25/10/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by Merriman Weir


"Jesus-specific"?? Your putting words into his mouth, man. He said "like" the bible, a fairly general statement. An atheist is going to think equally of the divinity of all religions.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

"Jesus-specific"?? Your putting words into his mouth, man. He said "like" the bible, a fairly general statement.

Not really. I'm going off what it says in the article:

Instead, Dawkins was able to move the debate onto a specific attack on Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus, which is a very different argument and obscured the central point of contention – the claim that science had buried God.

An atheist is going to think equally of the divinity of all religions.

For the record, I'm not a Christian, so I've got no personal axe to grind here. However, elsewhere on this board, I've remarked that Dawkins likes to choose his targets quite selectively. He seems to really focus on Christian belief and often sets up arguments based on the level of religious influence in this country that are either more applicable to Islam or equally applicable to Islam as they are to Christianity. Yet, Dawkins, doesn't speak about Islam anywhere near as often as he does on specifically Christian influence.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


Ahh, I didn't see that bit.


Still an atheist is still going to think equally of the divinity of all religions, but as in the case of Dawkins, will find themselves talking about it to different people. Dawkins is an english speaking white, meaning that he comes from the crop that is almost exclusively christian, its no wonder a lot of what he says is christian specific.

reply to post by kettlebellysmith


I just watched that last night ..It was a great documentary ...It was very interesting and explained alot of things for me .
Especially the part where they explained about a Cell ..and how Darwin made a cell sound so simple ..the other Scientists said it was anything but simple .
Also in Darwins time they did not know all about Cells that we know today.


One thing that got cleared up for me in this documentary is that our US is more secular than we all think it is and certainly BIASED in many areas ....If it was so conservative as so many here think it is ..Why then are Scientists who claim evolution is not the complete truth all silenced and kicked out of the Universities etc .(The ones on that Documentary were not even Christians ..they believed Intelligent design because of the SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS >...Why arent both sides able to work together and get to the real truth ...I believe alot like some of them did that the truth is that both may be correct ...
I personally believe that God created (gave the word) and the elements obeyed ....which is how we came to be ...

Why is man so afraid to believe that there may be a GOD ..thats the part I cant seem to wrap my mind around ........
Wont they all be surprised ....

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

Ahh, I didn't see that bit.

Still an atheist is still going to think equally of the divinity of all religions, but as in the case of Dawkins, will find themselves talking about it to different people. Dawkins is an english speaking white, meaning that he comes from the crop that is almost exclusively christian, its no wonder a lot of what he says is christian specific.

I appreciate what you're trying to say, but it actually runs counter to his own arguments. He uses the idea of influence and extremism in this country as examples of why religion is a 'bad thing'. However, as discussed in another thread, how much influence does Christianity really have in this country?

reply to post by Simplynoone


aw not you too. I'm saddened that you got sucked in by that lump-o-crap too.

reply to post by Simplynoone

Why then are Scientists who claim evolution is not the complete truth all silenced and kicked out of the Universities etc .(The ones on that Documentary were not even Christians ..they believed Intelligent design because of the SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS >...

only they were sacked for bieng terrible at thier job or wernt sacked at all just said they were........ its really quite embarrasing

The Claim
“The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began.” (Ben Stein, Expelled)

The Facts
Expelled doesn’t even get the paper’s subject right. The paper was not about how life began; it was about the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred about three billion years later. The greater error is claiming that the discussion of ID generated the controversy. There was an understandable outcry from members of the Biological Society of Washington over the embarrassing publication of what they recognized as poorly-written, inaccurate science in their journal.

The Claim
“After she simply mentioned Intelligent Design in her cell biology class at George Mason University, Caroline Crocker’s sterling academic career came to an abrupt end.” (Ben Stein, Expelled)
“[My supervisor] said ‘nonetheless you have to be disciplined’, and I lost my job.” (Caroline Crocker, Expelled)

The Facts
Expelled makes it sound as if Crocker was immediately removed (expelled, even) from the George Mason University classroom. On the contrary, she completed teaching the course in the normal fashion, even after student complaints and whatever “discipline” followed that meeting with the supervisor.

these are just bits i picked out take a look here and scrool down it covers the reality of the claims of dismisal and persecution
www.expelledexposed.com...

reply to post by Merriman Weir

i think part of the reason for this is who is he usually debating against,

theres a couple of videos on my above posts where he is talking about islam

he probabily talks more about christianity but thats the religeon he is more familiar with or at least we only see that side of it




[edit on 25/10/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


Yea, thats what i was getting at.

However, elsewhere on this board, I've remarked that Dawkins likes to choose his targets quite selectively. He seems to really focus on Christian belief and often sets up arguments based on the level of religious influence in this country that are either more applicable to Islam or equally applicable to Islam as they are to Christianity. Yet, Dawkins, doesn't speak about Islam anywhere near as often as he does on specifically Christian influence.

It seems all those who do not believe in god/gods attack Christianity more than any other religion.You could say its because a lot are from the west and Christianity is the predominant faith,but i think in religious debates all have to be included.

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

i think part of the reason for this is who is he usually debating against,

theres a couple of videos on my above posts where he is talking about islam

he probabily talks more about christianity but thats the religeon he is more familiar with or at least we only see that side of it

Well, I'd like to think that someone who was as previously adamant that there was no God was as fait with all the major religions. Otherwise, it's hardly a firm ground on which to debate theology, is it?

I'm aware he does mention Islam but it's not anywhere near as often as he mentions Christianity.

Originally posted by jakyll

It seems all those who do not believe in god/gods attack Christianity more than any other religion.You could say its because a lot are from the west and Christianity is the predominant faith,but i think in religious debates all have to be included.

My personal view on this is that Dawkins is very careful about how he selects his targets: I genuinely believe he's a bit cowardly in this.

Mainstream Christianity - the form of Christianity that the bulk of British people have been exposed to, has very little influence now. It's not the brainwashing bogeyman that Dawkins would like to make out. A lot of the more hard-line Christian fringes - the ones that do have a tighter grip on their followers - tend to have their roots in the immigrant communities, but as with Islam &c he tends to avoid any real coverage of these demographics. Instead, when he complains about the danger of religious belief, he points a finger at a flabby middle-ground Christianity which lost its teeth years ago.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


So.

"Work with what you know."

I'm agnostic, I used to be christian, every in-person solid discussion about God(s) and general divinity have been with christians and people who have a lot of experience with Christianity. I don't know anything about islam or any other religion so why would the context about that kind of discussion be not be around Christianity?

That's pretty much the same story for a large amount of the western world.

im at a friends right nowso cant spend much time searching out links

just throw richard dawkins islam in your search engine of choice and a bunch pop up

islamic creationism takes a hit here

www.telegraph.co.uk...


like i say its there maybe your right there isnt as much or maybe we just arnt exposed to it as much so dont know about it