|
New Richard Dawkins Documentary: "The Enemies of Reason"
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
| quote: | In his last Channel 4 series, Root of All Evil?, the evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins explored how organised faith and primitive religious values blight our lives.
But the fault line runs deeper even than religion. There are two ways of looking at the world – through faith and superstition or through the rigours of logic, observation and evidence – in other words, through reason. Reason and a respect for evidence are precious commodities, the source of human progress and our safeguard against fundamentalists and those who profit from obscuring the truth.
Yet, today, society appears to be retreating from reason.
Apparently harmless but utterly irrational belief systems from astrology to New Age mysticism, clairvoyance to alternative health remedies are booming.
Richard Dawkins confronts what he sees as an epidemic of irrational, superstitious thinking...
He explains the dangers the pick and mix of knowledge and nonsense poses in the internet age, and passionately re-states the case for reason and science. |
http://www.channel4.com/culture/mic...mies_of_reason/
First part aired last night. Here's the google video link:
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
Anyone seen it? Thoughts? |
|
|
| Krypton |
The only way to fulfill the ideals of Richard Dawkins is to set up a totalitarian government and force people to renounce their long-held beliefs. People who subscribe to say believing Jesus is God would rather die than renounce their religion. Suicide bombers ringing any bells? No matter how hard people believe themselves to be right, their view will never be the only view.
Richard Dawkins is not trying to court the religious to his worldview. He just attacks theistic worldview and caters to his own choir. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| I really like Dawkins, but it looks like the more he debates and argues, it's like a vortex that sucks him in and he has to debate even more and write even more books. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
The only way to fulfill the ideals of Richard Dawkins is to set up a totalitarian government and force people to renounce their long-held beliefs. People who subscribe to say believing Jesus is God would rather die than renounce their religion. Suicide bombers ringing any bells? No matter how hard people believe themselves to be right, their view will never be the only view.
Richard Dawkins is not trying to court the religious to his worldview. He just attacks theistic worldview and caters to his own choir. |
Well considering he has plenty of ammo, not attacking would be a bad strategy. Someone has to call BS on all these beliefs. Sure, we all have agreed that everyone is free to think as they wish, but thoughts have consequences and thats what people keep forgetting. History has taught us that religion and irrationality always lead to negative consequences. It has been like this for thousands of years, yet we somehow think that in our day and age it must be different. It sad we have not been able to let go of this vestige of what we once were. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
History has taught us that religion and irrationality always lead to negative consequences. |
LOL, says you. You wouldn't have universities, schools, your base 10 Arabic numerals, trigonometry, chemistry, and countless other things if it weren't for minds and institutions springing from religious [edit] societies[/edit]. Not every organized religion operated like the Vatican/Catholic Church. You obviously don't know a thing about other religions or their history. I think it goes to show how familiar you are with history and how religion has contributed to "social evolution." |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, says you. You wouldn't have universities, schools, your base 10 Arabic numerals, trigonometry, chemistry, and countless other things if it weren't for minds and institutions springing from religious [edit] societies[/edit]. Not every organized religion operated like the Vatican/Catholic Church. You obviously don't know a thing about other religions or their history. I think it goes to show how familiar you are with history and how religion has contributed to "social evolution." |
It had its place. Not anymore though, and sadly you are wrong, I am well aware of all the contributions religion has made, but it was things of the moment. At this moment, it doesn't serve much more than as social support. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
It had its place. Not anymore though, and sadly you are wrong, I am well aware of all the contributions religion has made, but it was things of the moment. At this moment, it doesn't serve much more than as social support. |
Religion serves to identify the Creator people believe sprung the universe and its laws from nothing. Humanity simply can't live without worshipping something. Be it a god, or lifestyle, person, thing, especially the worldview of materialism which has become the dominant secular religion pushed by a society ruled by multi-national corporations. Everyone worships something my friend. What they worship is based on two simple assumptions I've repeated a million times...
1. God created everything that is.
2. What everything is created itself.
From these assumptions, we'll get organized religion to trying to explain assumption 1 to those believing in assumption 2, and natural materialists trying to explain assumption 2 to those believing in assumption 1.
Religion is much more than a social support. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
wicked, cant wait to check it out. cheers for the link renegade.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, says you. You wouldn't have universities, schools, your base 10 Arabic numerals, trigonometry, chemistry, and countless other things if it weren't for minds and institutions springing from religious [edit] societies[/edit]. Not every organized religion operated like the Vatican/Catholic Church. You obviously don't know a thing about other religions or their history. I think it goes to show how familiar you are with history and how religion has contributed to "social evolution." |
LOL, says you :p
it doesn't follow that there is a causal relationship between religion and things that "sprang" out from it. i'd like to see your argument to link the two, more than "religious person A discovered X", which is (most often) merely coincidental. i have yet to see arguments that show an intrinsic relationship between religion and the institutions that arose out of these societies you speak of.
religion has done far more to withstand social evolution than it has ever done to promote/contribute to it. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Religion serves to identify the Creator people believe sprung the universe and its laws from nothing. Humanity simply can't live without worshipping something. Be it a god, or lifestyle, person, thing, especially the worldview of materialism which has become the dominant secular religion pushed by a society ruled by multi-national corporations. Everyone worships something my friend. What they worship is based on two simple assumptions I've repeated a million times...
1. God created everything that is.
2. What everything is created itself.
From these assumptions, we'll get organized religion to trying to explain assumption 1 to those believing in assumption 2, and natural materialists trying to explain assumption 2 to those believing in assumption 1.
Religion is much more than a social support. |
What kind of argument is that? Just because you feel you have to worship something does not entail that it is inherently human to do so. Christ, it's hard enough to prove that things like propensity to learn a language are inherent in humans, and here you are claiming that the need to believe is inherent in all humans. Empty rhetoric if you ask me. Answering the question "who created the universe" is inconsequential to a humans life. Most people don't use up even 2 seconds of the day to think about god or the universe or why we are here. Most people are caught up in their daily lives, having to cook or tend to their kids. What is consequential about believing in a god is the dogmas and attitudes that come with that belief. If religion were just a private belief that did not influence people's interactions with others or affected behaviour it wouldnt matter. The bottom line is, the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours that tend to come with religion, inasmuch as they affect others, tend to be negative. History is full of those examples. Recent ones, suicide bombers, the picketing of funerals, the irrational banning of things such as abortion and stem cell research.
I'm going to leave this argument here. Truth is, believers are the ones that have that need you are talking about. And in the end it is nothing more than a psychological need for comfort. Logic will not prevail in this discussion, because the act of believing itself defies logic. My point still stands until proven otherwise, religion merely serves as a social support resource, providing comfort, companionship and filling other such social needs. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
I just saw it. Pretty enteraining and amusing. Although I have to say it's a complete straw man attempt at dismissing the esoteric. Not a single "mystic" or student of the esoteric I know would ever take any of the people and examples he was talking about as being genuine X. Mainstream astrology is a bunch of horse, I think we all know that, along with many other pop culture superstition. No, I'm not advocating a belief in any of the stuff none of you guys have a clue about nor do I necessarily beleive in the validity of any it, but to be fair, his examples were complete strawmen attempts using selective and bogus examples of what can't even be remotely called esoteric or astrological phenomenon.
Thanks for the video though Renegade, I thoroughly enjoyed it and Dawkins witty sarcasm. Got a few good laughs out of it and was quite entertaining. Most serious practioners in the occult world don't take any of that pop mysticism or new age crap seriously at all. This might come as a shock to you, but the epitome of satanism is athiesm. No, I'm not saying athiest are evil lol. I'm talking about people who ascribe to the philosophy of modern satanism. I'm really going on a tangent here now plus most of you guys, especially the narrow minded and left brained rationalists here haven't the slightest clue what I'm talking about, so I'll stop.
But yeah, that was entertaining and well worth the watch. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I just saw it. Pretty enteraining and amusing. Although I have to say it's a complete straw man attempt at dismissing the esoteric. Not a single "mystic" or student of the esoteric I know would ever take any of the people and examples he was talking about as being genuine X. Mainstream astrology is a bunch of horse, I think we all know that, along with many other pop culture superstition. No, I'm not advocating a belief in any of the stuff none of you guys have a clue about nor do I necessarily beleive in the validity of any it, but to be fair, his examples were complete strawmen attempts using selective and bogus examples of what can't even be remotely called esoteric or astrological phenomenon.
Thanks for the video though Renegade, I thoroughly enjoyed it and Dawkins witty sarcasm. Got a few good laughs out of it and was quite entertaining. Most serious practioners in the occult world don't take any of that pop mysticism or new age crap seriously at all. This might come as a shock to you, but the epitome of satanism is athiesm. No, I'm not saying athiest are evil lol. I'm talking about people who ascribe to the philosophy of modern satanism. I'm really going on a tangent here now plus most of you guys, especially the narrow minded and left brained rationalists here haven't the slightest clue what I'm talking about, so I'll stop.
But yeah, that was entertaining and well worth the watch. |
Well now you've spiked my interest. If I am correct, satanism is a derivative of catholicism, where satan was 'created'. In order for 'satan' to exist, god would have to exist, because satan is one of god's angels that was exiled from heaven. Now how can you reconcile that with satanism being the epitome of atheism? Because it is the ultimate denial of god? Or what? Creating another god in order to deny 'God' is still theism. I'm talking out of curiosity, might you expand on this point? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
wicked, cant wait to check it out. cheers for the link renegade.
LOL, says you :p
it doesn't follow that there is a causal relationship between religion and things that "sprang" out from it. i'd like to see your argument to link the two, more than "religious person A discovered X", which is (most often) merely coincidental. i have yet to see arguments that show an intrinsic relationship between religion and the institutions that arose out of these societies you speak of.
religion has done far more to withstand social evolution than it has ever done to promote/contribute to it. |
I'm not saying things magically "sprank" out of religion. The fact of the matter is, with the exception of the modern world and developments in the science in the post industrial age, for the most part atleast, major advances in the sciences, arts, and philosophy (and the foundational material) were layed down in heavily religious societies and you can pretty much trace modern instituions back to religious institutions, and I'm not refering to a freaking church here. My theory is that religion, and this is an obsense over simplification of it, is that many religious doctrines provided the social stability and cohesion, and dare I say intellectual curiously, or in more modest terms, the sense of wonder and explorations, also affected by social stability, necessary for such developments and advances to take place to begin with. Does that clarify what I was trying to say? Does that necessarily imply God exists or religion x/religions are the truth? Hell no! But it certainly underlines their impact and importance on the development "civilization" and more complex social structures and institutional structures. You can always write it off as an evolutionary step ofcourse based on the assumption that the existance of God or Gods is a ludicrous concept.
Pardon the pun, by Jesus Christ PKC :p ! No need to get so defensive about your world view, I wasn't trying to imply the validity of religious inquiry over other forms of inquiry. My point was that atheist have a fair degree of anti-religion bias which is mostly deritvitve from their distaste for religion. Am I generalizing that to all athiest? No, but certainly a good number of them. Similarly, I generalize quite a bit of negativity to theists to but I certainly don't generalize it to all theists. The only reason I don't voice the latter much is that there's already an over abundance of criticism, not even all of it necessarily legitimate or fair (intellectually), directed toward "religion" all the time. So I don't really feel the need to.
[EDIT] Does that make more sense ;) ? |
|
|
|
|
