Richard Dawkins

Prof. Dawkins may take a hands on approch. However, his aguments are sound and logical. It seems odd to me how far we've come that i still have to be nice to my friends and pretend god exsists. I still get nervous when i have to tell people im am an athgeist. Surly the simple fact that we can see the beautiful andromada galaxy should be enough.
Ps. John why would you not consider converting someone to atheism. The rest of the western world travel round tryin to get people to accept rubbish as fact. At least athesisam is based on reality.

Hi. Would be interested bout peoples opinion's on this. Religion especially in this country has rained supreme and blocked progress in science for years. My question is this: (Can religion fill the gaps that are missing or can we do that with science)?

Take a look at the attendance at your local churches on Sunday and compare them to the numbers who turn up first thing at the local big shopping centre. Ireland is rapidly becoming a secular society and its predominant religion is consumerism. Nowadays the gaps aren't filled with belief, whether logical or not, they are filled with things, and precious few of those things promote any kind of enlightenment, scientific or spiritual.

While I would be the last person in the world to suggest a return to blind faith, I do wish that we could have found something more meaningful and wholesome to replace it with. As for your question, science cannot fill all of the gaps, nor can religion. Both can offer explanations for the existance of the natural world, though only the uninformed or wilfully ignorant would accept traditional religious apocrypha today, and religions can and do offer guidance about how we should live in it and with each other but science cannot do the latter. In the absence of religion there has to be something other than science to fill the gaps that it cannot address and there is - it's called politics but it's not politics as we practice it.

Can we not have a bit of 'live and let live' regarding religion on this day and age without the need to attack others beliefs?

Isn't that what religions specialise in? Hatred and smiting the unbeliever - i.e. anyone not one of them.

Can we not have a bit of 'live and let live' regarding religion on this day and age without the need to attack others beliefs?

Isn't that what religions specialise in? Hatred and smiting the unbeliever - i.e. anyone not one of them.

Eh no.

The trouble with 'live and let live' is that, really, science and religion are in conflict. Science literally undermines religion in removing its reason for existence : the necessity to believe in gods.

Theology used to be called the 'Queen of Sciences', as it explained the world in a way that natural philosophy did not, before evolution and the big bang. No-one now goes to religion to explain how the world works physically. This undermines the morality and ethics too: there is no reason to believe in Judaic morality if there is no reason to believe Yahweh exists. Gods get sliced and diced under Occams razor: if there is no reason to include them, then dont.

The result is that religious belief is falling dramatically worldwide, even in the US . This has led to a fight-back against Science, primarily in the US rather than Europe. This is mostly in the form of creationism, but this is part of a larger strategy . As an evolutionary biologist (is there another kind?) Dawkins was dragged into the battle, but it is a battle he relishes.

The documentary linked above is good. I enjoyed it but in general I'm not a Dawkins fan. He strikes me as being an evangelical Atheist and atheism flies in the face of the scientific method. Atheists are sure there is no God, that's not a position science supports. The natural position of science is agnosticism. Fanatic atheists harm science and perpetuate the pointless idea that science is against religion. It polarises people and is just a bad idea in my book.

I'm an avid secularist. I think we need to fight to keep church and state separate, but you don't do that by setting up a false battle between science and religion. Dawkins doesn't help solve any problems. He makes those who don't believe less tollerant and those who do believe more fierce in their beliefs. What does he acheive apart from polarising people?

Bart.