|
Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil? (religion) (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| WM2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
at the risk of butchering dawkins' response to this, he basically argued that its a silly propositition to assume you have a choice to believe anything. either you do or you dont, and having a false belief isnt going to fool god come judgement day ;) |
It's not at all silly. It's actually rather practical, and no one said anything about trying to fool God. If Dawkins really argued that we either do or don't have the choice he only backs up Pascal's argument. If we don't have the choice in the first place it again means no one loses, but if we do have the choice and you don't make the proper one(depending upon the outcome of course) you're ed. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
It's not at all silly. It's actually rather practical, and no one said anything about trying to fool God. If Dawkins really argued that we either do or don't have the choice he only backs up Pascal's argument. If we don't have the choice in the first place it again means no one loses, but if we do have the choice and you don't make the proper one(depending upon the outcome of course) you're ed. |
no, what he was arguing was that you can't just "believe" in something along pascal's lines to avoid whatever might happen to you if you're wrong. someone like dawkins is too convinced of god's non-existence to believe in anything else. |
|
|
| WM2 |
So then he's decided to place his faith and "soul" you could say on the option that their is no God.
Now, as for the "believing" part I'd have to say that true belief and not a show attempt is probably what Pascal was talking about. Just because I say that I believe something doesn't mean I actually live like I do, so attempting to trick God so to speak would be the same as choosing not to truly believe. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
So then he's decided to place his faith and "soul" you could say on the option that their is no God. |
well again, i would argue that it isn't really a decision, anymore than say, choosing what foods you like. try as i might i cant like beer or chocolate, i never chose to dislike either, i just do. |
|
|
| WM2 |
That's the problem. It is a decision. Unless all of us truly have no choice in the matter what you do is a choice. If we don't have the free will to choose and everything is preordained then it never mattered in the first place because you didn't actually make the decision. It was made for you. If you want to live like that it's you're prerogative, but I'd like to believe that we do have free will and therefore a choice to ultimately make.
Here is a funny and completely unrelated thought to what I just said. What's to say if religion is actually destroyed and we follow science that science won't being to create it's own dogma? When science becomes a method for governing people it's come to the same point that we're at now with different beliefs. You're still going to be putting your faith into something in hopes that it's true and we got everything right. You're still acting out on the human need to believe in something greater than yourself only now it's science and not a greater power which in honest terms could be seen as a greater power. Would people start worshiping Calculus? :stongue: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| LOL, yeah, something like that. People would probably go back to their paganistic belief systems, more often than not based on astrology/astotheology. Sun worship or some variation of it seems to be a popular one. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
That's the problem. It is a decision. Unless all of us truly have no choice in the matter what you do is a choice. If we don't have the free will to choose and everything is preordained then it never mattered in the first place because you didn't actually make the decision. It was made for you. If you want to live like that it's you're prerogative, but I'd like to believe that we do have free will and therefore a choice to ultimately make. |
see, i see it this way. if you know nothing about god, then it is a choice. but if you read the bible everyday and find something in it, the choice is no longer yours. it just is. conversely, if youre into darwin or other scientific studies then the same lack of choice can occur. the arguments compel you to believe, rather than you really "choosing" them.
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
Here is a funny and completely unrelated thought to what I just said. What's to say if religion is actually destroyed and we follow science that science won't being to create it's own dogma? When science becomes a method for governing people it's come to the same point that we're at now with different beliefs. You're still going to be putting your faith into something in hopes that it's true and we got everything right. You're still acting out on the human need to believe in something greater than yourself only now it's science and not a greater power which in honest terms could be seen as a greater power. Would people start worshiping Calculus? :stongue: |
haha. i cant see science becoming its own dogma. the difference between science and faith is that science is postulated, amended, tested, experimented etc. and to a lesser extent, we are already being governed by science, we only need to look at the current environmental debate to see that.
some people will always find something magical to believe in im sure, and i really dont ever see an end to organised religion. but i cant see people worshipping things like the sun because our understanding of the universe is such that we know it deserves no worship, in the same context that a deity might. |
|
|
| trewqy |
believing in science and god.
WTH?
Gimme beer and chicks and hope i die at 70! |
|
|
| WM2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
see, i see it this way. if you know nothing about god, then it is a choice. but if you read the bible everyday and find something in it, the choice is no longer yours. it just is. conversely, if youre into darwin or other scientific studies then the same lack of choice can occur. the arguments compel you to believe, rather than you really "choosing" them. |
All of it is just a matter of perspective really. We're almost saying the same exact thing, but just looking at it from different social, personal, political, and world views.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
haha. i cant see science becoming its own dogma. the difference between science and faith is that science is postulated, amended, tested, experimented etc. and to a lesser extent, we are already being governed by science, we only need to look at the current environmental debate to see that.
some people will always find something magical to believe in im sure, and i really dont ever see an end to organised religion. but i cant see people worshipping things like the sun because our understanding of the universe is such that we know it deserves no worship, in the same context that a deity might. |
It is a funny thought though. Really, who's to say that something like that wouldn't happen. We've seen many times over the course of history scientific beliefs that were praised and commonly accepted utterly destroyed by someone. |
|
|
| Taranis |
My greatest question for those who follow a Dawkins-esque, if I may, view of the world (that all religion is inherently bad and should be stamped out), is the following.
Religion serves as a moral code for a vast majority of the population (though decreasingly so). While it is true that there is a basic logical explanation for morality (pack instinct etc.), wouldn't it be fair to predict that should you somehow effectively break down religious belief in society it would also lead to a breakdown in the belief in these morals. While it is true that society as a whole benefits the most if everybody follows a basic moral code, the vast majority of humanity are incredibly violent, selfish creatures. Furthermore, when you look at the percentage of the population who rely on religion to guide them (though this is not always the case), it tends to be 'just' the kind of people you wouldn't want to be operating with little to no external moral guidance. While it is true that the enlightened, cultured, critically thinking minority will, to an extent, understand the basic need for moral beliefs to be adherred to, these aren't the people you need to convince, and the ones you do need to convince are the segment of society you've just stripped of moral guidance. Even if they know, 'rationally,' that morals are a good thing for society as a whole, most people don't give a about society as a whole. What remains to keep these people in check, remind them that murder, rape, stealing are 'bad' things?
It's true, there are a huge number of people in modern society who follow these moral standards without being religious, but these people often have these beliefs imprinted deeply into their minds from an early age, either by religious family members/authority figures, or people who have likewise had them imprinted on them in a similar manner. If you saw a complete break down of religion, eventually these beliefs would fade as time goes on, and then what would keep the masses in check, once they realise that they aren't going to burn in hell for their sins, that murder and rape aren't innately evil, that there is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing whatever they want except the restraints and punishments of the government, and increasingly shut down or learn to ignore their natural tendency towards empathy and replace it with their base urges and desires.
Because Discworld is awsome, and I love this quote:
Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
Susan: They're not the same at all.
Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.
Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what's the point?
Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?
Yeah, it's true that plenty of terrible and stupid things have been done by religion, yeah it's true that there probably isn't a God in the first place, but some people 'need' to believe in something, so let them have their fun. Religious fundamentalism is wrong, but extremes usually are, of all sorts. |
|
|
| Krypton |
So the theoretical question is...
If religion is not the backbone of morality, then what is?
Shouldn't murder just be a case of "survival of the fittest"? |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
So the theoretical question is...
If religion is not the backbone of morality, then what is?
Shouldn't murder just be a case of "survival of the fittest"? |
Research on the development of morality point to a biological predisposition and social influence (like any other human behavior). Religion is not the backbone of morality. It is just another social influence on the development of morality. Look at countries like the netherland. They are not very religious people yet the rates of crimes or 'amoral' behavior is not any higher than in more 'religious' countries. On the contrary, if you look at 'deeply religious' countries such as the US, Latin America, Israel and many Arab countries, those countries have higher incidences of 'amoral' acts. Higher crime rates, abuse against women and minorities, less freedoms and less consideration and help directed towards others. If this is the case, we don't need to answer the question you pose, but more how can we support religion as the backbone of morality. In my opinion if you did a correlational study between an operational definition of morality (say crime rates, respect for human rights, help provided to struggling people, etc), im pretty sure the relationship would be strong and negative.
As for your second question, you can not argue that we humans are of higher intellect and then attribute a behavior completely to animalistic instincts. Murder is not a simple behavior. Circumstances and internal predispositions and the actions of others all affect wether it happens or not. Your oversimplifying the event.
Edit: Im officially returning the question to religious folk here. How does religion enhance moral behavior, and if so, how do you explain the (apparent) inverse relationship between religious belief and moral behavior? |
|
|
|
|
