6 ms·

I heard an interview where Dawkins said something like "if there is a God, He must have evolved." Maybe he was joking, but it didn't sound like it. Evolution i

I heard an interview where Dawkins said something like "if there is a God, He must have evolved." Maybe he was joking, but it didn't sound like it. Evolution is a biological process. It would have no bearing on a being who created space and time. Biologists should not presume to trump philosophy and theology, any more than preachers should dictate which biological theories are acceptable.

amichail 17y ago
Dawkins does not believe that theologists have any special insights to offer on the mysteries of life. In his view, anyone's opinion is just as good as that of a theologist.
joubert 17y ago
The reason he says this, is that evolution by natural selection is the only process that we know of that describes how complexity comes to be.
- foldr 17y ago
  It surely can't explain the basic complexity of the laws of physics, or the complexity of mathematical structures like the integers. There are plenty of complex things which have no explanation in terms of natural selection.
  - joubert 17y ago
    "Basic complexity"?
    - foldr 17y ago
      Fine, the complexity of the laws of physics. (And is it really that difficult to discern which reading of "basic" gives a non-contradictory reading in that context? Hint: a near-synonym is "fundamental".)
unalone 17y ago
It's a mistake to lump philosophy with theology. Philosophy requires no "givens", which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumptions to partake in it. Theology, meanwhile, requires you first to assume the existence of God, and I'm one of the many many people who think that's a ridiculous beginning to a field of study. It's like if Nietzsche began his books by telling you his concepts and thoughts were only worth consuming if you first assume that we're living on a gigantic turtle. Preposterous. I like religion-as-sociology, however, and there's where the "evolution of God" concept is most fascinating. If you haven't read Douglas Adams's speech "Is There An Artificial God?", it's worth the read. Evolution is a biological process. It would have no bearing on a being who created space and time. And bullets bounce off of Superman because he's from Krypton.
- amichail 17y ago
  What exactly are the accomplishments of philosophy, aside from logic which is better studied by mathematicians and computer scientists?
  - khafra 17y ago
    Philosophy is sometimes considered the parent of the sciences--just about every pursuit of knowledge used to be philosophy. Once they were systematized, testable, and useful enough to stand on their own, they became sciences.
    - amichail 17y ago
      That's like saying that the major accomplishment of religion is that it led to science.
      - khafra 17y ago
        I don't disagree with that by much. Religious institutions in the past have preserved or advanced scientific discovery at times. The difference is that Philosophy consists of seeking the truth, institutionalized religion usually consists of defending the truth. Religions may spawn some scientific inquiry, but they have a lot of trouble letting their children go off and live their own lives, so to speak.

amichail 17y ago

Dawkins does not believe that theologists have any special insights to offer on the mysteries of life. In his view, anyone's opinion is just as good as that of a theologist.

joubert 17y ago

The reason he says this, is that evolution by natural selection is the only process that we know of that describes how complexity comes to be.

foldr 17y ago
It surely can't explain the basic complexity of the laws of physics, or the complexity of mathematical structures like the integers. There are plenty of complex things which have no explanation in terms of natural selection.
- joubert 17y ago
  "Basic complexity"?
  - foldr 17y ago
    Fine, the complexity of the laws of physics. (And is it really that difficult to discern which reading of "basic" gives a non-contradictory reading in that context? Hint: a near-synonym is "fundamental".)

unalone 17y ago

It's a mistake to lump philosophy with theology. Philosophy requires no "givens", which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumptions to partake in it. Theology, meanwhile, requires you first to assume the existence of God, and I'm one of the many many people who think that's a ridiculous beginning to a field of study. It's like if Nietzsche began his books by telling you his concepts and thoughts were only worth consuming if you first assume that we're living on a gigantic turtle. Preposterous. I like religion-as-sociology, however, and there's where the "evolution of God" concept is most fascinating. If you haven't read Douglas Adams's speech "Is There An Artificial God?", it's worth the read. Evolution is a biological process. It would have no bearing on a being who created space and time. And bullets bounce off of Superman because he's from Krypton.

amichail 17y ago
What exactly are the accomplishments of philosophy, aside from logic which is better studied by mathematicians and computer scientists?
- khafra 17y ago
  Philosophy is sometimes considered the parent of the sciences--just about every pursuit of knowledge used to be philosophy. Once they were systematized, testable, and useful enough to stand on their own, they became sciences.
  - amichail 17y ago
    That's like saying that the major accomplishment of religion is that it led to science.
    - khafra 17y ago
      I don't disagree with that by much. Religious institutions in the past have preserved or advanced scientific discovery at times. The difference is that Philosophy consists of seeking the truth, institutionalized religion usually consists of defending the truth. Religions may spawn some scientific inquiry, but they have a lot of trouble letting their children go off and live their own lives, so to speak.