Theology and Religion of The New Pope Dawkins - The Devils Chaplin

Richard Dawkins hardly needs introduction.

Borrowing from the subtitle, there are two rough categories under which we can discuss the major themes of these essays: celebrations of his love for science, and warning calls decrying as ‘lies’ all departures from scientific ‘orthodoxy’. ‘Science’ (including, in Dawkins’ view, Darwinism as a central tenet) is Dawkins’ overarching theme, his ultimate truth

Dawkins loves science as god, and consciously tries to build a world and life view around science

Dawkins moralizes on the wickedness of ‘speciesism’, the view that we humans are more valuable than any other species

Sprinkled liberally among the odes to science are Dawkins’ signature polemics against all departures from pure, orthodox Darwinian science.

Our ‘devil’s chaplain’, it appears, believes just as strongly as any (much maligned) fundamentalist preacher that the hard ‘truth’ must be preached

Dawkins saves the real fire and brimstone preaching for his excoriations of religion and creationism.

Dawkins believes that religion is one of the ultimate problems in the world, and his attacks take many forms. Dawkins uses his pet theory of memes to describe religions as ‘viruses of the mind’ (chapter 3.2).5

except his of course!

In an entirely different line of argument, Dawkins uses the tired old canard that religion, if it doesn’t cause war, is at the least ‘incendiary’ and divisive, and is thus bad (pp. 156–161). That religion divides is undoubtedly true, but this is hardly unique among ideologies—has Dawkins never heard of Marx’s class warfare?10

This is typical Dawkins, interacting with criticism at only a superficial level. If he condescends to Gould, it is even less surprising (but no less sad) that he ignores the flood of scholarship coming from the creationist and Intelligent Design (ID) camps.

Dawkins’ sermons fall apart under close scrutiny, and further, he never even considers deeper philosophical problems underlying his method of argumentation. When Dawkins talks of religions fomenting wars, how does he know on a naturalistic basis that there is anything at all undesirable about war?16

The point being made is that it is philosophically/theologically/ and metaphysically impossible to make such conclusions within the realm of naturalism, the 'ism' he uses as his basis to make his religious pontifications. OOpsie major (*)(*)(*)(*)up!

How does he know that there is anything inherently good in ‘truth’? In fact, as Alvin Plantinga has shown,17 there are reasons to doubt whether human thought is even capable of corresponding to reality within a naturalistic framework—the ultimate reductio ad absurdum of naturalism.18

yep theres the annoying mountain of Atheist contradictions again.

Dawkins has an epistemology. He believes that he is capable of knowing true information by means of the scientific method, but he is entirely without a foundation in naturalism for such a belief. Christians who presuppose Scripture, on the other hand, have epistemological warrant for belief in efficacious reason and science, on the grounds that God is logical and made an orderly universe.20 Small wonder, then, that Dawkins avoids the subject and prefers a surface-level polemical approach.

Sounds like his pants are around his ankles to me.

The biblical apologetic not only can withstand his individual ad hoc ‘empirical’ arguments, but even undercuts his entire basis of argument by showing that in order to have a reason to trust reason itself, we must presuppose the God of Scripture.21

http://creation.com/secular-sermons


....and now Comedians have started atheist churches!

Comedians Atheist 'Church' Plans Massive Expansion

The Huffington Post New Atheists

The Sunday Assembly, often called the "atheist church," wants to be a “global movement for wonder and good."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/21/atheist-church-crowdfunding_n_4136290.html

So here we have Dawkins the Atheist Pope who self identifies admits and proclaims he is the Devils Chaplin yet the apologists claim atheisim is not a religion?

Wow Just wow, I am speechless!

Maybe some of the board atheists can apologize why anyone would embrace such a religion that appears to be right out of the orwell 1984 novel?

 

I think you are trying to hard with your colors.

 

Is typing in colors a religion?

 

Christianity must be very weak indeed......

if one British-Kenyan scientist poses such a "threat" to it?!?!?!?

 

yes and BOLD letters too. That is called crayola'ing because some are blind, some forget their glasses and cant see, some (most) have ADD and are unable to read the whole post so they only need to scan for the bolded and crayola'd sections to understand the post. I see it as a community service.

 

Darwinism is bullcrap. There are so many things it leaves unexplained... also the statement that religion spreads war is false.

 

Darwinian Evolution went far past its founder now including genetics and mapping the movement of human populations in a historical context now can it explain everything ,no, but its demonstrated well enough to be the dominant theory of biological development of species on this planet. But this will improve in time as our knowledge and scientific options broaden and improve.

That said Dawkins doesn't speak for all Atheists I find his hammering religion over attacking the faith system under which religions depend very flawed.

 

The Bible specifically lists the same 22 human which preceded Modern man in the Genesis genealogy.
The present Bible readers have not recognized that,... because they repeat what their church-forefathers had said,... centuries before Darwin lived:

Chapters 4, 5, and 10 explain the correspondences of the Genealogy with the species of Paleontology:

 

Are you able to articulate why you feel atheism must be a religion? It does seem to be a bit of a thing for you.

 

lets they have churches just like a religion, are preaching sermons, just like a religion they have sunday gatherings just like a religion, they preach a worldview just like a religion, they collect funds just like a religion, they evangelize just like a religion, they preach morals just like a religion, they have their own god just like a religion, they worship their own god just like a religion.

looks like a religion, smells like a religion, feels like a religion, but I suppose you think its duck?


In fact, there exists an organization known as The Reason Project, a de facto, non-profit church for the God doubters, where they can meet, bond, and rejoice in the concept of human omniscience.

In order to belong to their exalted fraternity/sorority, it is imperative that the atheist share a common disdain for the spiritualists of the world.

Moreover, in the atheist's mind, the ultimate sinner is the scientist who clings to faith and refuses to pay homage to Reason as the ultimate power.

The worship of Reason is human hubris to the extreme and any organization that venerates Reason must ultimately renounce its primary antagonist, namely......Heart.

The logical extrapolation of Reason to all universal matters precludes considerations of Heart.


It is the demands of Reason that allow humans to torture animals in experiments "for the greater good."

It is the demands of Reason that emboldened the Nazis to experiment upon Jews for purposes of achieving expeditious medical epiphanies. It is the demands of Reason that require all "irrationalists" to be impugned and ridiculed.


By what right does the human animal insist that his definition of what is real, relevant, or appropriate must become the absolute verdict on all universal matters?

By what right do Reason disciples feel that science should serve as the final arbiter of all universal considerations when, over the ages, virtually every school of scientific thought has been discredited in hindsight as being no more than the "voodoo of its day?"


In any choice between Reason or Heart, I will lean toward the latter...but, of course, that's just what "irrational" musicians do.







http://bigthink.com/articles/how-atheists-bow-down-to-the-god-of-reason

 

I have to admit I'm a bit curious. What is, and is not, a religion? I decided to go to the source - this is from the faculty of the St. Mary's College of Maryland, who define some of the basic characteristics of religion:

* Soteriological (having to do with salvation)
* Theological (the rationalization of religion): Theology deals with the nature of supreme being.
* Anthropological (nature and possibilities of human being.
* Ethics (relations between humans): Religion defines appropriate forms of conduct between people.
* Cultic Practices (symbolic behavior)
* Temporal (having to do with the meaning of time)
* Cosmology (having to do with the meaning of the universe)

It would seem the first two are indispensable to qualify as a religion - they distinguish ordinary secular philosophy from religion. My two cents is that atheism is a philosophical position, and fails (in and of itself) to qualify as a religion. Conceivably, it could be made into a religion if one were determined enough, but that is not its essential nature.

The most puzzling question is the motivation behind the idea that atheism is a religion. What gives rise to this idée fixe? Most Christians I know don't think this way.

The ancient Greeks seemed unsure about the status of zero as a number. They asked themselves, "How can nothing be something?", leading to philosophical and, by the medieval period, religious arguments about the nature and existence of zero. The idea of absence seemed to induce an intellectual panic.

 

Would this mean that an institution isn’t a religion if it doesn’t meet all this criteria? Doesn’t have churches, doesn’t preach sermons, doesn’t gather on Sundays, doesn’t collect funds, doesn’t evangelise and doesn’t have a god?

Cue a lot of surprised religious people out there in the real world.

 

Dawkins is an atheist who has no religion

Atheists have no religion and your claim to the contrary discredits your entire op.

Dawkins does not worship science as a religion your claim that he does is a subjective assertion which you cannot support.

If you claim he said something such as all other beliefs are lies you need to reference your claim.

As always your op and thread is an epic fail

 

Just love that last line, Could you explain a little further since I can see nothing of similarity in what Dawkins has written and 1984.

How is your proof for existence of gods going? Still nothing?

How is your explaining of how if object morality comes from gods how you decide which gods objective morality is correct?

Have you considered how your insistence on religious doublespeak is far more analogous to 1984 than anything Dawkins has written. Your insistence on making non believers express their non belief as a belief is Classic doublespeak
Non belief is belief! Embrace belief with your non belief!

 

Religion does not cause war. Greedy people cause war and use religion as a justification.
As for Darwin, Dawkins and evolution, check this out.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36344155

I know the religious zealots will start throwing theory's about to equate her work being guided by an invisible man somehow.

 

Sure

Dodging

Ist that question better directed to Dawkins?

So that is your back door way of agreeing that dawkins and his atheist movement is irrational?

Bravo! So you do see how irrational the atheist premise is after all.

- - - Updated - - -

no it would not mean that.

 

In which case it seems your definition of religion is conveniently flexible.

 

this is you making (*)(*)(*)(*) up and inserting it into biblical interpretation.

 

500% Agreed!

You bring in evolution which is the object of the dawkins religion, and does not change the fact that dawkins is evangelizing and preaching at the pulpit



- - - Updated - - -

no, it means you cant stuff 10 pounds of coffee in a 1 pound can.

 

Ignoring or the rubbish the op puts out to cover his basic premise let's remember what he is saying.

Atheism is a religion!

This is because,

BELIEF IS THE SAME AS NON BELIEF

So we get the silly picture,the ridicule, anything to avoid his premise that everyone has a religion!

 

but I have already shown you the boolean logic that you cant get to your opinion without making a conjunctive errors in logic. http://www.politicalforum.com/religion-philosophy/455194-freedom-atheism.html

The size of your text and the height of your soapbox and the volume on your megaphone wont change that.

 

unbelief (n.)
mid-12c., "absence or lack of religious belief; disbelief of the truth of the Gospel," from un- (1) "not" or un- (2) "opposite of" + belief.

disbelief is the latin/german version of unbelief.

An atheist cannot preach his religious beliefs because he has none. The most he can do is preach a humanist or secularist view.

Strangely enough you can have an atheist 'church'. The word church means 'ecclesia' - a gathering of people - not a building. The 'ecclesia' , often called 'chosen ones' meet in a building we call a 'Church'.

Atheist 'churches' are simply buildings where atheists get together to 'unbelieve' and 'preach' their unbelief, or human beliefs. Christian 'churches' do the opposite.

Me? I'm agnostic. BUT I do believe in the good Devonshire scone with Devonshire clotted cream and strawberry jam.

 

so belief God does not exist is not a religious belief?

 

AND


I have already gone through and corrected the logical errors atheists continually make using un and dis and not in great detail in the other thread.

{¬believe ⇔ believe not}

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion-philosophy/455194-freedom-atheism-33.html


Word Origin and History for un-

prefix of negation, Old English un-, from Proto-Germanic *un- (cf. Old Frisian, Old High German, German un-, Gothic un-, Dutch on-), from PIE *n- (cf. Sanskrit a-, an- "not," Greek a-, an-, Old Irish an-, Latin in-), a variant of PIE root *ne- "not" (cf. Avestan na, Old Church Slavonic and Lithuanian ne "not," Latin ne "that not," Greek ne- "not," Old Irish ni, Cornish ny "not").

Freely and widely used since Old English in compounds with native and imported words, it disputes with Latin-derived cognate in- the right to form the negation of certain words ( indigestable/undigestable, etc.). Often euphemistic (e.g. untruth for "lie"). The most prolific of English prefixes, it even is used to make words from phrases (e.g. uncalled-for, c.1600; undreamed-of, 1630s; uncome-at-able, 1690s; unputdownable, 1947, of a book; un-in-one-breath-utterable, Ben Jonson; etc., but not restricted to un- ; cf. put-up-able-with, 1812). As a prefix in telegram-ese to replace not and save the cost of a word, it is first attested 1936.

prefix of reversal (e.g. unhand, undo, unbutton), Old English on-, un-, from Proto-Germanic *andi- (cf. Old Saxon ant-, Old Norse and-, Dutch ont-, Old High German ant-, German ant-, Gothic and- "against"), from PIE *anti "facing opposite, near, in front of, before" (see ante ).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

 

Exactly. How can it be a religious belief if god does not exist?