Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Bluestocking - your Richard Dawkins story?

75 replies

yama · 11/08/2007 22:34

Well?

OP posts:
scampadoodle · 11/08/2007 23:13

Speaking as an extremely lapsed catholic (never go to mass, married to a secular jew), whilst we kinda know there is no tooth fairy or father Christmas, there is no such certainty about the existence or otherwise of a god - I think it's something people (including) children) should come to their own conclusions about. So, yes, I think there is a problem. It's like telling your children they have to vote a certain way just because you do.

Tinker · 11/08/2007 23:14

too

yama · 11/08/2007 23:14

Unquiet God - that's a bit of a childish argument.

I'm not a Christian but to compare God to the Tooth Fairy seems lazy.

OP posts:
UnquietDad · 11/08/2007 23:15

Well, I think they should be encouraged to look for the evidence. And it's a little thin on the ground.

UnquietDad · 11/08/2007 23:15

Blimey, I am not an Unquiet God!! Have I been promoted??

Tinker · 11/08/2007 23:16

pmsl @ UQGod. That has to be your new name

scampadoodle · 11/08/2007 23:17

Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

sfxmum · 11/08/2007 23:19

and this is where i leave this thread

it would be dishonest for me to tell my child something i do not believe in may be true as opposed to 'this is what some people believe in'

likewise i hope to pass on politic social values which lead me to vote the way i do. i can't tell them what to do but i do hope to pass on my deepest beliefs and values

Tinker · 11/08/2007 23:20

But is that an argument scamp? As a lapsed catholic (sorry, an ex-catholic) I find it very difficult to try think of the world as I woudl have thought about it if there had never been any mention of god in my upbringing.

UnquietDad · 11/08/2007 23:21

But the person making the assertion needs to be the one with proof.

It is philosophically impossible to "prove" the non-ness of something - even the tooth fairy - so you therefore have to weigh up the evidence for and against. Having done so, I am as convinced as it is philosophically possible to be that there are no "gods".

Theists are always asking athiests to "prove" God doesn't exist, in the full knowledge that they can't. (Prove Thor doesn't exist. Prove the Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. You can't do so, but that doesn't make it unreasonable to be pretty damn convinced there is no such thing.)

Tinker · 11/08/2007 23:21

I'll leave the argument as well sxf. Let's get back to bluestocking's story Where is she?

yama · 11/08/2007 23:22

Unquiet Dad - Why not? Suppose I might respect you (subconsciously of course).

Anyway, how many people begin to or believe in Santa in adulthood? How many people find the tooth fairy consoling in old age?

(Remember Im not a Christian - just open minded)

OP posts:
startouchedtrinity · 11/08/2007 23:24

lololol @ Unquiet God! I can't remember the time something on here made me laugh so much

IMO we all brainwash our dcs about something or other (eating meat, voting, liking ABBA...) Then they grow up and realise we've been talking bollocks.

scampadoodle · 11/08/2007 23:26

Sorry, didn't mean to be god-squaddy (as I am so resolutely not!) I just think there is a lot of unexplained magic in the universe & whilst RD would think I am simply not intelligent enough to understand the physics he believes solves it all (& he's probably right), I reserve my right to walk to the top of a hill & think "Eeh bah gum, what a smashin' view!" & feel connected to the universe that way... he appears to think everyone should think the way he thinks & those who don't are idiots (he's incredibly vitriolic about it). & that, in my book, is arrogance.

yama · 11/08/2007 23:29

I agree scamp. Remember many phyicists and biologists are Christians. It is not a case of science v religion.

(btw Unquiet Dad - my dp wholeheartedly agrees with you)

OP posts:
sfxmum · 11/08/2007 23:29

we will be able to see him in all his glory next monday on C4, apparently with less foaming at the mouth as usual.

so where is the gossip?

UnquietDad · 11/08/2007 23:30

I think he's misunderstood. I can see how he comes across as arrogant, but I think this is just a result of having argued the same things for 30 years and having to rehash them over and over again when people offer him the same rebuttals.

He clearly states in his books that he doesn't believe science solves everything, and he is delighted by the fact that there is still an immeasurable amount to understand. But I think he believes that we are slowly, bit by bit, beginning to make sense of the universe because of scientific breakthroughs. And the great thing about them is that they are allowed to prove their peers wrong and for this to be GOOD.

I'm sure he'd enjoy the smashing view too.

yama · 11/08/2007 23:34

I can explain the Big Bang, I can explain evolutionary theory but I can't explain why? I don't think RD can either.

OP posts:
McEdam · 11/08/2007 23:40

I love UnquietGod, that surely calls for a name change?

Agree that the important point about science is that you are encouraged to test theories and see if they stand up to fresh evidence. I share Dawkin's impatience with shoddy thinking, (although I'm sure I'm as guilty of this as the next person. But not as guilty as a creationist).

There's plenty of wonder in a lovely view without having to invent a deity to take responsiblity for it. If you feel moved to explain the lovely view, you can that using science.

scampadoodle · 11/08/2007 23:41

The thing is, RD is probably right when he thinks people like me are simply too thick to understand this stuff properly because whenever i try to read about it it just makes my brain hurt. To me, [quantum? particle?] physics is a load of blokes sitting around until one of them says, "I think the universe is made of blue cheese!" & they all then scurry about developing theories as to how & why it is so. & to lil' brained ol' me, this just seems like fantasy extrapolated out of random ideas. Take this Big Bang machine they've built in Switzerland. they haven't a clue, really, what's going to happen, & they won't even be able to SEE what happens, they'll just be measuring a reaction (do correct me if I'm wrong, science bods!) so how the f* do they know WHAT'S going on???

McEdam · 11/08/2007 23:41

Btw, UQD, I called dh to tell him the Lalla Ward news, what with him being a Dr Who nut who treasures the picture of him aged seven meeting Tom Baker. He said, 'Who is Richard Dawkin'. I dunno, adults these days...

yama · 11/08/2007 23:42

Please don't bring Creationists into it - I thought they only existed in America.

OP posts:
Tinker · 11/08/2007 23:43

But the why doesn't matter does it? It's the fact that science is trying to find out the way that's important non?

scampadoodle · 11/08/2007 23:43

& I believe in the Big Bang, by the way - but how did all that energy get there in the first place?! I'm not saying it's 'god', I'm just asking...

scampadoodle · 11/08/2007 23:44

Sorry - gotta go to bed now!