|
Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil? (religion) (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Marc Summers |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
religions came into being through irrationality and ignorance in trying to explain the nature of the world around us. id like to think we're a bit more capable than we were 4000 years ago.
|
Not ignorance, How can you ignore things that couldn't be explained 4,000 years ago? It was created to explain the unkown, and politically, religion was created specifically to create a group, and rid themselves of slavery. And then, Moses created the ten commandments, which were given to him by god. They were laws for the jewish people, saying that if you break my rules, you are breaking god's (Rules).
I'll be back to finish my post later. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
Not ignorance, How can you ignore things that couldn't be explained 4,000 years ago? It was created to explain the unkown, |
um, thats the very definition of ignorance is it not??
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
and politically, religion was created specifically to create a group, and rid themselves of slavery. And then, Moses created the ten commandments, which were given to him by god. They were laws for the jewish people, saying that if you break my rules, you are breaking god's (Rules).
I'll be back to finish my post later. |
religion & superstitious belief systems were around well before the time of moses. and the older styled religions were even more ridiculous than the current ones. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and the older styled religions were even more ridiculous than the current ones. |
no way! the sun god owns yhwh! :(
:p |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
He seemed to be against the passive belief in God as well. It sounded to me as if he were against any kind of faith, which I'd oppose.
[...]
Once you see Chapter 2, you will see that he's even against moderate Christians, who are more tolerant. |
He was quite clearly against fundamentalism on moral grounds - no question about that - but from his interview with the liberal bishop towards the end of Part 2, I don't think he's so much against passive / moderate belief as he is logically incredulous about it. He says to that bishop something along the lines of "What you're saying is music to my ears" and "I agree with most of what you're saying", but then questions that if is possible to reject such a large chunk of the Bible, then why retain the Christian faith at all? On what logical basis can the case be made that it is possible to accept the divine authority of the Bible while simultaneously picking and choosing which parts you follow?
While I'm sure that Richard Dawkins would rather see a planet full of liberal Anglicans than fundamentalist evangelicals (I would too), his point is a valid one: if they can accept and use reason to such an extent as to dismiss the more unsavoury aspects of the Bible, what is stopping them from making that final leap and admitting to themselves that if some parts of the Bible are demonstrably false that the Bible, as a moral text, has no more authority than any other moral system? Wouldn't it be better to reject the outdated moral commandments of the Bible altogther and adopt the much more rational moral theory of, say, Kant instead?
| quote: | | I humbly believe that having faith is a necessary step before acquiring reason. It's just a matter of what individuals took this step, and what individuals didn't. |
I'm not sure what you mean here. Care to elaborate?
| quote: | | The last thing we need is science to behave like a fundamentalist religion: "they're completely wrong and we're right", as such thought would share traits with both ethnocentrism and religiocentrism. |
Science could never really act like a fundamentalist religion because the methodologies are diametric opposites. Fundamentalism starts with the conclusion which is to be dogmatically defended irrespective of the facts at hand, whereas science finishes with the conclusion and this conlcusion must - to be truly scientific - be made in complete reliance of the empirical facts at hand. If our interest is to understand "reality" then there is no dissonance involved with being dogmatic about expressing only that that which is fundamentally and demonstrably real.
| quote: | | Although this might sound strange at first, I'd say he should've given the same message, albeit in a less "frank" tone, due to his own theory of memes. |
I agree with you here. Much of what perpetuates religious fundamentalism is "fear" and to combat this theory, those perpetuating a godless universe (as Dawkins and I are) need to show how important aspects of human existence - like morality and purpose - can still exist without a God. While I was pleased to see Dawkins briefly explain the origins and necessity of morality in human beings and how life in the present is what really matters, I do agree that he didn't really drill this point home enough and was nowhere near as expansive as he was in his literature. Perhaps this would have been more possible had the series been longer, but I certainly would have liked to have seen a positive alternative to religion ellucidated alongside the justified, negative criticisms or religion.
| quote: | | However, put yourself in the shoes of someone who is religious. The frank tone might sound offensive, and your "will to believe" will simply lock your comprehension. No matter how good his points are, they won't be able to reach those who took the leap of reason, if you allow me to bastardise Kierkegaard's thoughts and use this expression. |
If people are beyond reason, to use your words, then what good is a calm, rational presentation of the facts going to acheive? The European Enlightenment - Western society's first schism from the domination of religion - wasn't acheived through conciliatory gestures or notions of "compatibilism" between reason and faith, it was acheived by brutally championing the superiority of the former over the latter. Guys like Hume, Voltaire, Paine etc. didn't assist the spread of reason by fostering gentle notions like "compatibilism" (well, Hume did, but that had nothing to do with religion ;)) or the mutual exclusivity of the worlds of faith and reason, they did so by relentlessly questioning the dogma of the church, the irrationality of religious faith and the subjugation of science and reason within this context. We shouldn't have to tread carefully because some people - i.e. those who would be most likely to dig in their heels in when faced with contradictory evidence to begin with - may be "offended": we should be exposing the senselessness of religion and superstition for all who are amenable to reason to see. Fact is fact, and I don't think that this notion can ever be expressed too "frankly".
| quote: | Imagine you and some other person who is beside you. Imagine, for a while, that you're not interacting in any way. Since his existence is completely indifferent to you, there's no reason why you should be against (or for) him.
Now, imagine that the other individual finally does something. If this action goes against something you want/need, you will perceive this action as undesired, and you will have negative views toward this other individual (the opposite is also true) and might, probably, do something to revert the situation and avoid such undesired action. The more he tries to harm you, the more passionate you'd be at defending yourself, and that's where Newton's third law comes: the harsher you are at someone, the harsher his existence will judge you (i.e. either he will fight you or ignore you, in a fight-or-flight situation).
If you're to convince someone else that science is, in fact, good (which I believe it is), you must have this person link "science" to "good things". If, by any reason, he perceives religion as something fundamental to his well-being, and you attact this foundation, he's going to attack both you and what threatened his belief. |
Yep, great sentiments, and that's why I agree that Dawkins should have probably gone to more lengths - even if it meant filming another episode - to presenting why a rational, scientific world-view is far more satisfying and beneficial than that of a dogmatic religious world-view. As it stands, though, that didn't happen, but I still do not believe that there was anything in that documentary that anyone who is open to reason to begin with would find particularly offensive or alienating.
| quote: | | quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and the older styled religions were even more ridiculous than the current ones. |
Originally posted by Psy-T
no way! the sun god owns yhwh! |
It may sound silly, but I'd actually agree that sun-worship is actually far less ridiculous than any mainstream religious belief because:
1) The sun actually exists.
2) The sun is actually demonstrably resposible for the emergence and sustainance of life on this planet.
While I'd never go so far as to "worship" the sun, as an atheist I do find a great deal of majesty in the natural world and the sun is undoubtedly a very important facet of it. :) |
|
|
| ali92 |
Just watched the whole 1.5-hour documentary and I'm not surprised at this guy. I agree with a good deal of what he has to say, though I believe religion is something that should've stayed in the times when not much could be scientifically proven. There isn't much of a place in today's world for religions as we know them.
Of course, we don't know for sure certain things like how our universe was created, etc., but why not just leave it at that - we don't know it yet? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
One thing I find incredibly annoying about some atheists/agnosts/non-theists (atleast relatively intelligent ones) is the idea that "rationality" should be the basis for everything. I'm sorry, but there's nothing "rational" about morals. Please throw them out the window (Note: I'm not arguing about whether morality is based on religion or not).
When I took my first few logic classes (like sentential calculus, discrete mathematics etc), a very basic concept I learned about was that for a statement(s) to be correct or 'logicaly sound,' all the predicated (or assumptions) it depends on must hold true. Or, if you're going to make a statement, you'd better be able to justify it in order to assert it's validity. My point is, how the hell do you prove there's such a thing as right or wrong, moral or immoral? How can prove murdering a new born child is wrong? You can't, you simply assume it (and there's no way to justify an assumption you pull out of thin air). Catch my drift? |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
um, thats the very definition of ignorance is it not??
|
:o
| quote: | ig·no·rance
n.
The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. |
You can't be unaware and uninformed of things that haven't even been thought of yet (4,000 years ago). Ignorance only applies when something in the present is ignored.
Einstein said this about converting energy into mass:
| quote: | | It is something like shooting birds in the dark in a country where there are only a few birds |
This was before the discovery of the neutron. Does this make Einstein ignorant? I think not. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
One thing I find incredibly annoying about some atheists/agnosts/non-theists (atleast relatively intelligent ones) is the idea that "rationality" should be the basis for everything. I'm sorry, but there's nothing "rational" about morals. Please throw them out the window (Note: I'm not arguing about whether morality is based on religion or not).
When I took my first few logic classes (like sentential calculus, discrete mathematics etc), a very basic concept I learned about was that for a statement(s) to be correct or 'logicaly sound,' all the predicated (or assumptions) it depends on must hold true. Or, if you're going to make a statement, you'd better be able to justify it in order to assert it's validity. My point is, how the hell do you prove there's such a thing as right or wrong, moral or immoral? How can prove murdering a new born child is wrong? You can't, you simply assume it (and there's no way to justify an assumption you pull out of thin air). Catch my drift? |
using argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad verecundium? |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
One thing I find incredibly annoying about some atheists/agnosts/non-theists (atleast relatively intelligent ones) is the idea that "rationality" should be the basis for everything. I'm sorry, but there's nothing "rational" about morals. Please throw them out the window (Note: I'm not arguing about whether morality is based on religion or not).
|
One thing I find incredibly annoying is ignorant people who never studied evolution and anthropology.
The reason for morals is that they make sense socially and for survival of the group. There is actually a socioeconomic basis for morals and that's how they evolved. The disadvantages for theft or murder outweigh the advantages in any social group where people have to work together, live together, and play political games of reciprocal altruism (which is how the world works).
Please read some books on evolution and educate yourself. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
One thing I find incredibly annoying is ignorant people who never studied evolution and anthropology.
Please read some books on evolution and educate yourself. |
Where the hell did that come from? I'd appreciate it if you didn't make baseless assumptions about me.
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
The reason for morals is that they make sense socially and for survival of the group. There is actually a socioeconomic basis for morals and that's how they evolved. The disadvantages for theft or murder outweigh the advantages in any social group where people have to work together, live together, and play political games of reciprocal altruism (which is how the world works). |
In rational objective framework, What is "making sense socially?" And how is "survival of the group" of any significance? Please justify the need for both. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
using argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad verecundium? |
Neighter, in a "rational" scientific objective framework (if that's even possible). |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Neighter, in a "rational" scientific objective framework (if that's even possible). |
what is irrational about making decision in questions of immesurable relativity by appealing to consensus and/or authority? |
|
|
|
|
