|
Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil? (religion) (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| 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). |
Actually, morality is a lot more rational than you're probably thinking. Here's a good beginning:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
When I took my first few logic classes (like sentential calculus, discrete mathematics etc), a very basic concept I learned about was how for statement 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? |
By checking what the consequences are, for example. Living rationally never took me to a path of immorality and mayhem :D
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
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? |
Of course you can - it's an individual just like you are! The rest is just theory that begins from this start point :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
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? |
If you consider the fact that the first modern philosophers did come to the conclusion that God existed following logic (e.g. Descartes), it's not impossible to imagine that the bishop could've followed a similar pattern, I reckon.
As for the reasons behind it, well, that could be something he didn't manage to refute logically - that's why he might not have ditched it.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
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? |
I agree with you when you say it does not have more authority than any other moral system, and that some of its moral laws can be considered "false" in the modern world.
However, Descartes himself claimed that religion and tradition could be used as provisory basis for an improved set of moral laws: in that case, they felt some of the laws can still be applied after analysing them - as they have nothing better to replace them with - and such change might even be unnecessary.
Still, that shows *some* thinking.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I'm not sure what you mean here. Care to elaborate? |
Sure.
Having faith (and believing) is an important step, during childhood, that works like a kick off: the world is a magical place for children, and, as Dawkins pointed out, children tend to believe what they're told and their view of the world is a naive realism.
After the child learns to believe, it learns to doubt, and question the previous beliefs. A child can't "not believe" first, believing is a necessary step for this cognitive process, I believe.
Piaget had something about it, I guess.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
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. |
However, if pseudoscience - for example - emerges from a science and keeps labelling itself as a reliable portrait of reality, self-delusion would protect its believers from admitting that what they believe in is not actual science. Countless times I've heard "scientific facts" backing up beliefs.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
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. |
So would I :)
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
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". |
hmm... I see your point and I'd agree with you if only I could understand why religion keeps spreading in spite of these facts.
Here in Brazil, for example, a more "enlightened" mass (i.e. people with diplomas and often with a more sophisticated understanding of the world), seems to favour religions such as Kardecism, which even bastardises itself with Christianism in order to be more popular.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
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. |
I'd agree with this - but my main concern is with people who are not open to reason: how could you convince them, and draw their attention to this? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Apparently you guys missed the point (or I didn't do a good job of getting my point across). The impression I get is that alot of PDDers (alteast the regulars) think that if you choose to ascribe to any religion, you're automoatically stupid and are incapable of rational thought since they're is an element of belief involved or, if you can't scientifically/mathematicaly prove something, it's bollocks; stuff along those lines. So if something cannot be proven to be correct, we don't need to consider it at all. Using that same logic, throw morality out the window too. Because what they basically are is a set of assumptions, not provable predicates. Does that help? |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Apparently you guys missed the point (or I didn't do a good job of getting my point across). The impression I get is that alot of PDDers (alteast the regulars) think that if you choose to ascribe to any religion, you're automoatically stupid and are incapable of rational thought since they're is an element of belief involved or, if you can't scientifically/mathematicaly prove something, it's bollocks; stuff along those lines. So if something cannot be proven to be correct, we don't need to consider it at all. Using that same logic, throw morality out the window too. Because what they basically are is a set of assumptions, not provable predicates. Does that help? |
but everyone here just argued that morality need not be thrown out the window, since it can be explained with logic(/science) :p |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
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. |
I think that you're assuming that science and science are actually the same. :) One thing is what science ideally should be, and another is what actually goes on among scientists, and more importantly which image is projected towards non-scientists. Some scientists classify all beliefs on things that are non-verified as irrational and therefore bad. The methods used to combat these "errors in thinking" are not as pure as you present them, but rather sneers, ridicule, and hand waving. Moreover, non-scientists may see scientists as the new priests - bringers of truth, and hence may accept the *preferences* of scientists unconditionally, just as the religiuos believer may accept the preferences of the local minister as those of his own.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
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? |
I agree that you cannot *prove* that a specific set of morals are "right" (or true). But that is not something that is specific to morals - it is true of anything that should be proven: Proofs are by definition a finite derivation using a priori specified derivation rules from an a priori specified set of axioms. Without axioms like "if something benefits a creature it is valuable", "value should be maximized", etc. you cannot prove anything. But if you reject moral axioms (such as, "survival of yourself and your pack is positive", which Tito and Psy-T derived morals from) on the grounds that they are axioms and as such ultimately unprovable, then you should reject a whole lot of other axioms - including those that lead you to believe in your deity.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Apparently you guys missed the point (or I didn't do a good job of getting my point across). The impression I get is that alot of PDDers (alteast the regulars) think that if you choose to ascribe to any religion, you're automoatically stupid and are incapable of rational thought since they're is an element of belief involved or, if you can't scientifically/mathematicaly prove something, it's bollocks; stuff along those lines. So if something cannot be proven to be correct, we don't need to consider it at all. Using that same logic, throw morality out the window too. Because what they basically are is a set of assumptions, not provable predicates. Does that help? |
Obviously, I can only speak on behalf of one agnostic, but personally I don't find the belief in something unprovable inherently awful. What I *do* find stupid is the adherence to the laws of any organized religion. Anybody who says he knows about the will of god is either a liar, madman or superhuman. There's a hell of a lot more liars and madmen than superhumans, so believing him is stupid. Same goes for any books or leaflets he may drop in your mailbox on his way out.
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
I have only browsed a few of the posts in this thread and know nothing about the arguements of this Dawkins guy, however how is it even possible to hold the two beliefs that religion is the root of all evil and that religion is nothing more than a creation of man sustained by the stupidity/laziness/whatever of man?
If religion is not a creation of man and is greater or separate than man, then maybe religion could be the root of all evil.
However if you say that religion is nothing more than stories/ideals/etc made up by man and sustained only by the blind/"less informed" following of man, then it is not religion that is the root of all evil but man.
And to say the world would be better off without religion, while holding that religion is nothing more than a creation of man, is wildly innaccurate. The core tenets of the major religions, excluding Hindiusm, today all call for respect and love of your fellow men. It is manipulative demagogues and hapless followers that distort and pevert the core teachings of religion into something else. To remove religion only would still leave the demagogues and followers to distort and pevert whatever is left.
What really is needed is more "perspective", where each person really looks at his/her beliefs, the effect those beliefs have on themselves and the world around them, the claims and outcomes of those beliefs, and his/her own soul with thought and care. And doing all this while always keeping an open mind.
To say that religion prevents or hinders this "perspective" I have mentioned is just a cop-out that humanists make to blind themselves to the nature of man. Religion becomes a scapegoat, while that state of man stays the same and science/"rationality"/the-next-big-thing becomes the new "religion". |
Excellent post! |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I agree that you cannot *prove* that a specific set of morals are "right" (or true). But that is not something that is specific to morals - it is true of anything that should be proven: Proofs are by definition a finite derivation using a priori specified derivation rules from an a priori specified set of axioms. Without axioms like "if something benefits a creature it is valuable", "value should be maximized", etc. you cannot prove anything. But if you reject moral axioms (such as, "survival of yourself and your pack is positive", which Tito and Psy-T derived morals from) on the grounds that they are axioms and as such ultimately unprovable, then you should reject a whole lot of other axioms - including those that lead you to believe in your deity. |
Exactly. I don't think it's fair to ridicule others for not sharing the same axioms (not that I disagreed with Psy-T or Tito's rationale/explanation). An axiom is an axiom is and axiom.
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Obviously, I can only speak on behalf of one agnostic, but personally I don't find the belief in something unprovable inherently awful. What I *do* find stupid is the adherence to the laws of any organized religion. Anybody who says he knows about the will of god is either a liar, madman or superhuman. There's a hell of a lot more liars and madmen than superhumans, so believing him is stupid. Same goes for any books or leaflets he may drop in your mailbox on his way out.
|
I agree. But that's exactly the part I don't like. Many areligious people automatically seem to assume that; the implication of having a religion is that you're basically following some Mullah/Priest/Rabbi and not thinking for yourself. That is simply not true. Not all "organized" religions have that same hierarchical structure. And not all followers care much for "authority" figures. Like you said, if someone claims to have superior authority when it comes to issues of morality/spirituality/religion, he/she is probably a liar, madman or superhuman (the latter being the least probable on the list).
So my point is belief in religion != belief in a human figure claiming some kind of moral authority/divine guidance/whatever bull.
Athough I concede to the fact that there are alot ing idiots out there, but they're not restricted to any particular group. ;)
EDIT: One more thing, I can't believe I'm acutally explicitly saying this, but even religious people (intelligent ones) have a rationale behind their world view and came to that decision after putting alot of thought into it. |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
I just watched "The Real Family Of Jesus", and it was very interesting.
It backed up some parts of the bible with historical and archeological facts. And it wasn't focused on disproving anything, it was very down to earth and fair to both believers and non-believers  |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| I just downloaded a copy of this and was watching it again. Some of the stuff they teach in "religious" schools is downright disturbing, like the little production to drill the fear of hell in to kids at a really young age. Did you guys notice the small section where they're producing a small play on abortion? It's f'n disgusting, especially manipulating young impressionable minds like that. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Thanks for posting this Lira, definetly a keeper. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| currently reading dawkins' "the god delusion". its magnificent :) |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Dawkins forgot that more people were killed by atheistic(Moa & Stalin) and occultist(Nazism) regimes than by all the religious wars put together. Is that in his book? |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Dawkins forgot that more people were killed by atheistic(Moa & Stalin) and occultist(Nazism) regimes than by all the religious wars put together. Is that in his book? |
Yeah, but on the counter argument, those events are within relatively short period of time in modern age, while religion has been used as an excuse ever since cavemen start having their own set of believes. (though religion has often been used as an excuse to advance a political agenda and territorial gains esp) |
|
|
|
|
