Hacker News Reader

> I can't stand this nimrod.

A professor at Oxford and the man who wrote The Selfish Gene, one of the best science books EVER, is many things. Nimrod is not one of them.

> Outside of the US, there is nowhere on the planet where that belief system comes close being 40% of a population.

This is patently false. Alot of europeans think this. They think this is a uniquely American problem. I have no idea where this myth comes from, but I have my suspicions: they are a victim of poor media coverage and a sense of cultural superiority.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4410927/... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm

39% of people in the UK chose "creationism" or "intelligent design". One in three believe the earth is under 10,000 years old. These numbers are slightly, but not substantially, higher in the US.

You should look up the meaning of Nimrod. There is a reason it is capitalized, and it has nothing to do with how smart you are, or your individual contributions to science. In fact, being smart is a pre-requisite.

In the survey, 51 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement that "evolution alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention of a designer is needed at key stages" A further 40 per cent disagreed, while the rest said they did not know.

Turning that into "40% of people think that the earth is 6000 years old" is called twisting your statistics.

What the surveys you link to suggest is that people can accept both evolution and the existence of a god. There is no conflict there, and that doesn't turn them into young earth creationists.

In fact, Charles Darwin himself would fall firmly into that category.

> Turning that into "40% of people think that the earth is 6000 years old" is called twisting your statistics.

You clearly did not read what I linked you.

Asked whether it was true that "God created the world sometime in the last 10,000 years", 32 per cent agreed, 60 per cent disagreed and eight per cent did not know.

32% of UK are young earth creationists and 8% "do not know". So please do not sit there and tell me that this "does not approach" 40% of people anywhere but in America. Your statement is simply false. This is NOT uniquely an American phenomenon.

I hate to link to faux news, but see here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207858,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg

Why are you changing the subject? How is this relevant?

You said young earth creationism was uniquely an American phenomenon. You said that nowhere in the Western world does young earth creationism approach 40%. Except.. that's -exactly- what is happening in the UK (32% + 8% "don't knows"). I've provided you with the evidence. The reason I chimed into this conversation is because you were making statements that were simply false.

You don't think I'm acutely aware of the US acceptance of evolution? Why is that relevant? Did you somehow read into my statements that the US didn't have a major problem? Dawkins statement is SLIGHTLY exaggerated, statistically. Your response, however, was substantially more inaccurate.

The graph I linked to clearly shows that a majority of the western world have only small minorities that disagree with the statement that we have evolved from another species.

In other words: evolution.

I know you would like to continue to belabour the point that 40% of the population of most western nations are young earth creationists, but that simply isn't supported.

Dawkins' statement is a distortion of the facts. Most people in modern countries - with the exception of the US - have accepted the basic tenets of evolution. Like I've said elsewhere, it is only Dawkins that attaches to this the condition that in order to believe evolution you must not believe in a god.

I can't stand this nimrod - ad hominem.

Dawkin's is both an asshole - ad hominem.

and a worshiper(sic) of evolutionary theory - strawman.

Honestly, what a load of rubbish. Dawkins doesn't worship anything. If you show him evidence that demonstrates a flaw in the current theory of evolution, he'll happily change his mind. That is the direct opposite of all that worship implies. He does not value the idea of evolution any more than any other idea on the planet - he is sceptical, and will reject it if that is where the evidence leads.

At any rate, opening up your objection with three fallacies is not likely to convince anyone of your position.

Those are only 'fallacies' if his post is meant to rebut Dawkins claims and he's using those statements as support for an opposing position. Instead, he says he agrees with Dawkins but finds him to be kind of an asshole. I agree.

Except he does rebut Dawkin's claims. Did you not read the part about not accepting Dawkin's claim that 40% of the western world does not accept evolution and instead believing in a Young Earth Creationist model?

As per the original post, it seems to me that the demonizing of Dawkin's is largely unfounded. Even though I've never met him, from what I can tell from videos and interviews, he is a fairly meek man who just writes passionately about his position. I would hardly call his position evangelical because he is neither unwilling to change his position nor is he founding his statements upon unverifiable evidence.

Just because the man is confident, doesn't mean he's an asshole.

My point though isn't about his confidence level, but the fact that he is being arrogantly hypocritical, suggesting his detractors base arguments on logic and evidence - of which I have no argument with - but then supporting his own stance with stuff he's clearly firing off of the top of his head.

It's the arrogance that he is above error combined with the - obvious! - error itself that makes him come off as an asshole.

Quibbling. Ok, let's accept your position. They aren't fallacies if you choose to believe that the OP doesn't really have a problem with Dawkins' position. So what are they then? Derogatory assertions without offering any argument to back them up? Childish insults? And anyway, why is the OP so passionate about it all?

Frankly, I doubt very much that he accepts Dawkins' factual claims. Why to I think this? Because he rejects the one factual claim that Dawkins is quoted as making in the article (40% of the western population holding creationist beliefs). You only have to watch Dawkins in action for 5 minutes in an interview to know that the guy weighs what he says and writes very carefully indeed, and will always have studies to back up these types of claim. This all leads me to believe that'fallacy' is the right word in responding.

The remarks you complain about in eleventh-grade Debate Club format are expressed more eloquently in the article itself:

And here, one feels, lies the paradox about Richard Dawkins. For a committed atheist, he can also be fervently evangelical about the causes he believes in and sometimes seems as driven as a preacher who wants to pass on The Word.

It is an analogy that goes down badly, needless to say. The difference between science – where every statement has to be tested and proved – and religion, where basic tenets go unchallenged, is too vast to justify such comparisons, he says.

Nevertheless, there is no disguising the chilly exasperation he exudes when confronted by the godly, whose extreme adherents, the creationists, he has described as "pig-ignorant and thick". Such remarks infuriate believers and have earned Dawkins a fearsome reputation for arrogance.

"The accusation is unfair, however. He is certainly uncompromising, but not wilfully rude or overbearing. He is generally polite, softly spoken, and precise in his statements – often taking uncomfortably long pauses to weigh up his replies to questions. He is certainly not a ranting demagogue. On the other hand, he is a ferocious debater."

If you are going to quote, you should as well include the whole statement on the issue.

First off, what jdminhbg said.

Second: If you show him evidence that demonstrates a flaw in the current theory of evolution, he'll happily change his mind.

Given his attitude towards those with differing opinions, I'm not sure he would even get to the point of being able to see any perceived flaw. It is this arrogance that I question in him, and yes, it does equate to worship.

If you hold your opinion so highly that it prevents you from evaluating other arguments, you have moved into the realm of religious belief. IMO, Dawkins is firmly in that realm, regardless of how he got there or whether or not I hold to the same things.

What gets me even more is the seeming willingness of his followers to excuse outlandish statements like the one in my earlier post with nary so much as a comment.

At any rate, opening up your objection with three fallacies is not likely to convince anyone of your position.

That would assume that I have a) a contrary position and b) care to change anyone's mind.

On the contrary, he has said -- in The God Delusion, in TED speeches, etc. -- that he is an agnostic. He emphasizes that he believes that there is no god, but that he cannot prove it. He calls himself a "tooth-fairy agnostic". He cannot disprove a god, but thinks that a god is just as (im)probable as the tooth fairy.

So he's not being dogmatic. But he's quite clear that religious beliefs are not susceptible to logical refutation. But this means that you must make a choice: if you are going to demand that the world follow logic, you're stuck with a disbelief in a god. Conversely, if you believe in a god, you are willing to accept non-logical propositions. This is where science and religion wind up in conflict.

He gives lip service to being agnostic, but like most atheists, doesn't really see the difference.

Evolution really has nothing to do with god. The only people who think it does seem to be ones like Dawkins and creationists that discount it completely. The rest of us don't see the conflict.

Evolution does not allow one to come to a conclusion that there is no god. Nor does it create - in any critical assessment- the environment to say you don't believe in god, and that this belief is supported by science.

Only faith allows for that.

You ought to read The God Delusion to better understand the argument you're trying to refute. That book isn't centered around evolution; I don't actually recall evolution being discussed in it. The arguments were about biblical contradictions; hypocrisy amongst self-professed believers; and a contrast between the morality preached by various religions relative to the sort of world that such a system might create.

And as I said, Dawkins freely admits that his disbelief is not supported by science: he cannot scientifically prove that there is no god. Rather, he identifies himself as an agnostic who believes that the likelihood of there actually being a god is extremely low -- but he can't prove it.

What is the rationality of vehemently holding a belief that you cannot prove? He's proving himself on a par with the zealots he likes to criticize. The whole point of religion goes down to faith : either everything is accident and life doesn't matter or there's a larger plan. An individual may feel there is more than this life and have faith in that, but it is inherently something that cannot be proved. This has absolutely nothing to do with modern religion - which is so often little more than the most angry book club ever. Biblical contradictions are simply not relevant to any discussion of atheism - many times in the bible it talks about how Jesus uses parables so people can understand, you should probably take the bible about as literally as any other great novel with a deeper meaning.

"What is the rationality of vehemently holding a belief that you cannot prove?"

There is a crucial difference between actively believing there are no gods, and not believing there are any gods. I think Dawkins states the latter.

There are many things not worth believing because of a lack of evidence, and one need not provide counter evidence in order to rationally withhold belief when there is no evidence to support a claim.

I understand agnostic... but I find his stuff to be very skewed against religion and spirituality, Dawkins is a well known, self professed atheist. I find spending so much time and effort on these particular topics just so strange... I don't see a contradiction between faith in the existence of a greater intelligence and rationality and faith only makes sense when there is no evidence. It's an emotional thing not an intellectual thing. We can all believe whatever we want and when we die, we'll find out what the real deal is.

I believe that I heard him referring to himself as a "tooth fairy agnostic" was in this video, toward the end: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_milita...

He is also quite clear in The God Delusion that by any rigorous definition, he an agnostic and not an atheist. So I don't get why people keep arguing as if he's making a factual statement about the (lack of) existence of a god. He talks about (a) how it can't be proven, but (b) it seems highly unlikely that there is a god.

Yes, he acknowledge the fact that he actually has no idea and then continues to talk authoritatively about how it is "unlikely" that there is a god. I find him to basically be an ass, I've seen vids and read articles. He talks quite often of atheism, just google him... here's a qoute :

"An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.[67]"

Here in Jamaica I would say most people believe the Bible to be God's word. There is not much of an evolutions vs creation controversy here as it is in the US. Outspoken atheists are a minority. Most of the population live like like pagans, but if asked, many claim to believe in 'The Father.' Some don't want any 'white god.'

As a former Christian (I left Christianity in early February), I can understand Dawkins' frustration. I'm almost ashamed to admit it, but when Obama got elected, I thought he was the 'false prophet' of the book of Revelations, who would set the stage for the Antichrist. Ain't that some shit...

I'm literally amazed that you have managed to get away from those thought, I didn't think people that held such extreme views could be convinced. Congratulations, I'm happy for you.

Thanks, I'm even happier for myself! I'm only 22, so I have my whole life ahead of me. I feel badly for the former ministers, theologians and missionaries etc. who, after dedicating 30 or 40 years to religion realize the irrationality.

There are many more who've 'deconverted.': www.de-conversion.com www.unreasonablefaith.com www.debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com

All of those are run by former Christians. In fact, Nathan Phelps, the son of Fred Phelps (of GOD HATES FAGS fame) recently gave his account of what it was like growing up. Moving stuff.

why throw out the baby with the bathwater? If you've left a faith (any faith) in a logical fashion, good. If you're leaving a cult to avoid having delusions, it's good too, but consider that many Christians live okay lives not worried about the Antichrist apocalypse.

True, but I think it's fair to say that most do. At least those that take their faith seriously. After all, Christ did tell us to look out for the signs of the end. And throughout history, Christians have have always tried to ascertain the identity of the Antichrist. Some thought it was Nero, some thought it was Antiochus Epiphanes, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Obama...

Some groups, however, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, believe that the Roman Catholic church, as an institution, is the Antichrist. This was also the position of the Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin.

I agree. I have a lot more respect for quiet agnostics like Sir David Attenborough+. To the best of his knowledge, there is no God, and if there is likely God used evolution as a tool for creation. But he never insists that everyone believe it as fact, or that anyone who doesn't believe is ignorant. He simply says what he thinks is true.

+the gentleman who narrated Earth an Blue Planet, as well as the "BBC Life" nature documentary series.

I like Attenborough. Like me, he is an agnostic that is not interested in being labeled atheist. He also understands that science cannot possibly be used to describe "god" or the lack thereof, but that doesn't equate to a non-existence of such a being.

It is a logical, critical assessment. I feel that Dawkins misses this, even though he may play it some lip service.

I thought Attenborough was an athiest. Certainly sounds like it in this quote:

"I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/4347954/...

He considers himself agnostic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#Views_and_ad...