Do you agree with this statement?

[Orko]

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." - Richard Dawkins

[CamilleBonparte]

Christianity doesn't teach us that, so obviously I don't agree with factually incorrect statements, but what else can you expect from Richard Dawkins. The man knows nothing of the topics he breaches in The God Delusion, and that is why he really should have stayed in the laboratory.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Christianity doesn't teach us that, so obviously I don't agree with factually incorrect statements, but what else can you expect from Richard Dawkins. The man knows nothing of the topics he breaches in The God Delusion, and that is why he really should have stayed in the laboratory.

How about the Book of Genesis trying to teach us about the Earth?

[SigniferOne]

How about the Book of Genesis trying to teach us about the Earth?

Yeah a Catholic priest authored the Big Bang Theory. That's because Genesis taught him more about reality than all the made up polytheistic religions of human history.

[Col. Tartleton]

Yeah a Catholic priest authored the Big Bang Theory. That's because Genesis taught him more about reality than all the made up polytheistic religions of human history.

He would have discovered it regardless. He was a priest and an astrophysicist. If he wasn't a priest he would have still be fascinated by those things. Being a priest also didn't stop him. But it would have in the past. Religion is coming around, but there is still a desire to use science to vindicate religion rather than simply let the cards fall where they may in some areas. Then you have the fundamentalists in America and the Near East either completely disregarding science or using psuedo science to explain the bible and arguing it as fact rather than a vague theory.

As I pointed out in my other thread while I have a rather strange theory concerning the history of the concept of hereditary rule and religion I'm not saying it's fact just a theory ultimately based on some circumstantial evidence and the patterns (rather than the contents) of ancient hearsay.

[LegionnaireX]

Christianity doesn't teach us that, so obviously I don't agree with factually incorrect statements, but what else can you expect from Richard Dawkins. The man knows nothing of the topics he breaches in The God Delusion, and that is why he really should have stayed in the laboratory.

Dawkins admits to not knowing a lot of specific details about religious doctrine, but the God Delusion was still a pretty good polemic backed up by a decent quantity of evidence. I specifically liked the cargo cult story.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

What does he mean by "understanding"?

[Copperknickers II]

Yes, I do agree.

[Jack04]

I'm not "against religion", I'm simply "not religious". Though I do feel that certain religious teachings can be misinterpreted in pretty much any way you please and such ambiguity is dangerous because it can lead to such feelings as expressed in the statement.

[Gordon Freynman]

Replace "religion" with "religious dogma" and I would agree.

[Hilarion]

It's an incredibly vague blanket statement that carries little substantive value or implication. It's like saying, "I am against government because it encourages us to be politically complacent."

[Big War Bird]

It's an incredibly vague blanket statement that carries little substantive value or implication. It's like saying, "I am against government because it encourages us to be politically complacent."

Then you should read his books for more information on just what he means.

[Hilarion]

Then you should read his books for more information on just what he means.

I've read God Delusion and I'm pretty well acquainted with his arguments. But the quote given by itself in the OP is meaningless.

[Makrell]

Nope im againist it
Seems to be no point
Religion doesnt say we cant understand more, it just explains what we cant understand

[In3x]

Yes I agree.

[The Dude]

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." - Richard Dawkins

I am in favour of some religions because they make the average person bother with trying to understand the world at all.

I am also in favour of Richard Dawkins and likeminded people then trying to pique the interest of these same people even further.

[boofhead]

I disagree with that Dawkins one-liner. Most religions don't have a problem with learning more about the universe scientifically, it tells them more about the glory of God.

For example, there are astrophysicists who are Christians. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The only time I can see his statement would be correct would be regarding extremist versions of religion, such as some forms of Islamicism, or Christians like the Amish, where science is pretty much seen as the work of the Devil or some such hogwash.

That having been said, it would be helpful to know in what context Dawkins spoke.

[Blaze86420]

The only time I can see his statement would be correct would be regarding extremist versions of religion, such as some forms of Islamicism

Islamism doesn't discourage astrology. You're just trying to share the guilt that burdens Christianity when it comes to this issue.

EDIT: Nevermind, Sherkhan beat me to it.

That is exactly what I'm saying: their culture cannot provide what they want, they have to come to the west.

Lol, their culture? Try country, lest you get yourself into a hole you won't be able to argue yourself out of.

EDIT: Nevermind, motiv beat me to it. Not a good day today.

[xcorps]

Religion doesnt say we cant understand more, it just explains what we cant understand

Not really. People use religion to explain things they can't understand. Not the same.

[Apologist]

Not really. People use religion to explain things they can't understand. Not the same.

Which is ironic.

"I can't explain it. Therefore it was God's work."

Which really is saying

"I can't explain it. Therefore I can explain it.".