Richard Dawkins : The Myth destroyer


2 thoughts on “Richard Dawkins : The Myth destroyer

  1. Although I find Dawkins to be lucid, well informed and convincing when he points out weaknesses in the various forms of fundamentalism, there is one area where I think he does have a weakness. Many of his comments about the Bible are not as he implies,original to the sort of atheism he champions. His comments about weaknesses and inconsistencies in the Bible are well known and emerge from generations of genuine Bible scholars. Read John Robinson (Honest to God”, Lloyd Geering, Bishop John Spong eg “Rescuing the Bible from fundamentalism” and there you will find many of Richard Dawkins’ arguments. Many Christians are literate in such areas and well aware of the nuanced views of the Bible and for that matter, at least some are equally aware of nuanced views of science from the point of view of the followers of Christianity . Dawkins is truly a great popular commentator of science and religion – but then so is Ronald Numbers, Professor Charles Coulson – and even Albert Einstein was very clear that atheism was not an option for him.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks so much for Adding such a gracious comment, and letting me know about other notable commentators of science such as Ronald numbers and Charles coulson so I can check out their work.

      For me, Dawkins is one of the most convincing scientists When addressing Abrahamic religions, and Ideological Fundamentalism because he starts from a scientific basis and follows up with philosophical or Ideological Claims ( If it might be called that), but the scientific part is what interests me in his work and not so much the Ideological aspect which i think is different when studying different religions, and their effects on people. He hits the Jackpot discrediting the Bible and the Quran of their Divine nature by disproving two main Claims these books make:
      1- The story of creation (Adam and Eve)
      2- The Great Flood (Noah’s Ark)

      It has been scientifically proven through the cumulative discoveries in sciences that these stories are scientifically false, and that leads to the Absolute belief that Abrahamic scriptures are man made, leaving one who is logical but doesn’t want to exclude all possibilities of creationism with exploring the chances of a divine creator initiating life away from the Bible or the Quran, and that can only be done through science.
      Many people make the mistake of assuming that the bible, Torah or Quran or whatever book they were psychologically conditioned to believe in is the only way to god, and without belief in that book, there is no belief in god, but this is not the case. I will be more than happy to explore the chances of the existence of a creator away from books that has been scientifically proven to be false. And that brings us to Einstein who said

      “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.” ( Hoffmann, Banesh (1972). Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel. New York: New American Library, p. 95.) Einstein Also replied to an italian immigrant asking about his beliefs saying ”

      ” It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. ( Dukas, Helen (1981). Albert Einstein the Human Side. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 43. Einstein Archives 59-454 and 59-495)

      And even though he was not an Atheist he was not a believer either, and he sometimes described himself as agnostic.

      So to summarize, The Bible, Quran, Torah or whatever book is not the one and only way to a creator. This is a possibility that can be explored with logical and scientific means without resorting to Scientifically incorrect books.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s