|
Goodbye Sweden. (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex23
You should listen to debates with him. Seems pretty radical to me. |
He is rather radical, but the sources of his views (such as experience) are infinitely more reliable than revelation/faith/unfounded creativity. In this sense, he's way more trustworthy in his views than any theologian. Ever. However, he should keep in mind that before dismissing religion entirely, he may end up throwing the baby out with the bath water... |
|
|
| igottaknow |
"I don't have a problem with religion, only the ppl who practice it."
-IGK |
|
|
| Znack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
He is rather radical, but the sources of his views (such as experience) are infinitely more reliable than revelation/faith/unfounded creativity. In this sense, he's way more trustworthy in his views than any theologian. Ever. However, he should keep in mind that before dismissing religion entirely, he may end up throwing the baby out with the bath water... |
Why do you think Dawkins is radical? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
Why do you think Dawkins is radical? |
Because, in a sense, I do agree with him: science has a well deserved special epistemological status that no other form of inquiry has ever achieved. Philosophy is quite useful as a provider of intellectual tools and as a generator of hypotheses, though it can't come any closer to science regarding the accumulation of knowledge used to act upon the world (science did stem from philosophy, so the difference is not surprising); literature is also quite useful, being able to provide scenarios and hypotheses we can mentally experience, though it can't come any closer to science regarding how the word actually works when you don't have access to all the variables; and religion is quite helpful, in the sense that it may bring social cohesion and a sense of belonging to individuals through narratives - and that's something science is extremely pathetic at.
Unlike philosophy and science, literature and religion can provide firm foundations: Jesus was born in Bethlehem and said we should love one another, and Winston fought the Big Brother in a dystopic London. They don't even have to exist to embody concepts like brotherly love and doublethink. If you have a question, all you have to do is go back to the text and check what was said. The difference between literature and religion, however, is that no one thinks George Orwell had any sort of divine communication with another dimension, so you can treat him as an equal. In this sense, religion is awesome because you're not supposed to have much of a choice: if you disagree with Him, you're pretty much screwed after you die.
In this sense, religion is incredibly stable: If you taught Aristotle and Plato contemporary physics, they'd be puzzled; even in the Humanities, if you taught them linguistics, they'd be shocked and horrified. However, if you teach them about Christianity, they're not going to be any more surprised than the Romans that embraced it before their empire became history.
What Dawkins wants to say is that science is the only form of knowledge worth having in the world. In a sense, it's hard not to be swayed by his arguments: science sends rockets to the moon, religion launches rockets at infidels, therefore science is much more awesome. However, it doesn't mean we should dismiss everything religion ever provided us (like I said, the Christian egalitarianism is a nice thing to have around), and it doesn't mean a scientific worldview can substitute religion. Science requires us to keep changing our ideas constantly and have a much less secure place in the universe. It's easy to drop these beliefs when your society gives you this security, as Zuckerman says is the case in Scandinavia (hey you!), but when you come from a developing country where people are too worried about what may happen to them, an overseer is a welcome idea. It's hardly surprising that so few people are willing to give it up for something as empty as "reason" (specially when you have very good reasons to hold spiritual beliefs).
So, in short, it's because we can't all be like him.
Edit: Tried to embed something, didn't work. |
|
|
| d-miurge |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_alfi
And the red/blue is indicating what exactly? |
Red = liberal government
Blue = conservative government |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex23
He doesn't talk much science during debates. Way to use personal insults to try and win an argument. :rolleyes: |
because you said that science and religion both have outrageous and impossible to prove claims, thus confirming that you know all about science in general, the scientific method or what it takes for something to to be accepted as valid in the community, because if you did, you would never make such an ignorant statement. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
Legitimising the view that the Quran is an ultimate authority DOES legitimise the following of explicit instructions in the Quran. If some Muslims genuinely don't view the Quran that way then I fully support them and hope their views spread all through the Muslim world. |
Carefull what you wish for there; Big Shooter. You've mentioned the Qur'an calling for the murder of homosexuals; however, it does not. In fact, there are only 5 lines referring to homosexuality in the Qur'an and not a one of them specifies any punishment for them. Anyone who calls for the murder (or execution in their eyes) of homosexuals is actually pulling their theological support from the Hadith in which Muhammed is attributed to have stated homosexuals caught in the act should be killed. In this instance anyone calling for the execution of homosexuals is taking the Hadith to be a higher authority to the Qur'an. Interestingly, the largest of the main schools of thought (Hanafi) in Sunni Islam (which is about 80-90% of muslims) expressly calls for no physical punishment of homosexuals, based largely on the fact that the Qur'an doesn't call for any. So, you see; in this instance anyway, perhaps it would be better if Qur'anic thought actually did rule supreme in the "Muslim world." Interesting that none of this was covered in your Qur'an classes.
| quote: | | But the currently mainstream view of the Quran does cause an insane amount of violence and oppression right now. It's not academic, it's literally true that this belief causes horrible suffering in the world RIGHT NOW. I therefore cannot support any form of Islam that has not reformed its view of the Quran. |
Actually, it is the exact opposite.... most of those that preach violence in the name of Islam draw their theological support from the Hadith rather then the Qur'an. For example; Hamas includes the following in their charter ""The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." which is from the Hadith; whereas most of the Qur'anic references to Jews are actually positive and where they are not is usually in reference to specific individuals or local populations of Jews. |
|
|
| Trance-MB |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chimney
These aren't words that are supposed to be used by the biggest clown on this forum. |
Everyone who really knows me would say the opposite, so what do your words say about you? |
|
|
| Chimney |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trance-MB
Everyone who really knows me would say the opposite, so what do your words say about you? |
The last post was uncalled for. I apologize.
What I mean was that I've met several Dutch people that said there are problems with immigrants behaving badly. I'm not saying it's as bad as in Sweden, since after all...the Swedish government consists of the biggest jackasses in the history of the universe, ever since the first atom was made, but there have been problems with those kind of people in Holland as well.
Or? |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Society is extremely viral in nature, and this is quite on purpose, too: where would we be if society were not as transmissive a thing? How would there be any early cohesion amongst people, much less individuals? Persons, in their infancy, learn the basics of right and wrong, cold and hot, how to say "I want this" or "I want that", and this communication, be it verbal or otherwise expressive, is how each of us gets along with other individuals in our given societies. Uniformity is often the gel that eases the largest movements - people speaking the same language, generally thinking the same things, regarding the same myths, observing the same laws - is it not easy to see how this can be threatened by the sudden influence of other cultures and their inherent counter-cultures? Any location in which this sort of thing is absolutely forced, be it by war and displacement, or even state-supported immigration, is bound to become a crucible.
I know, I know, it's really obvious, but what's even more obvious is the fact that people aren't some inner-city mural where you can just paint them anywhere you like and expect them to act accordingly, yet governments with diversity and acceptance on the mind seem to embrace this fantasy and don't recognize that the most common thing man can share is indeed in toil, but men working together is equally uncommon with regard to the survival of the social organism. Assimilation comes in many forms, not all of which are beyond the scope of literal consumption; Attempting to force the hand of peace while holding onto one's principals and respective culture of individuality is an exercise in defeat. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Society is extremely viral in nature, and this is quite on purpose, too: where would we be if society were not as transmissive a thing? How would there be any early cohesion amongst people, much less individuals? Persons, in their infancy, learn the basics of right and wrong, cold and hot, how to say "I want this" or "I want that", and this communication, be it verbal or otherwise expressive, is how each of us gets along with other individuals in our given societies. Uniformity is often the gel that eases the largest movements - people speaking the same language, generally thinking the same things, regarding the same myths, observing the same laws - is it not easy to see how this can be threatened by the sudden influence of other cultures and their inherent counter-cultures? Any location in which this sort of thing is absolutely forced, be it by war and displacement, or even state-supported immigration, is bound to become a crucible.
I know, I know, it's really obvious, but what's even more obvious is the fact that people aren't some inner-city mural where you can just paint them anywhere you like and expect them to act accordingly, yet governments with diversity and acceptance on the mind seem to embrace this fantasy and don't recognize that the most common thing man can share is indeed in toil, but men working together is equally uncommon with regard to the survival of the social organism. Assimilation comes in many forms, not all of which are beyond the scope of literal consumption; Attempting to force the hand of peace while holding onto one's principals and respective culture of individuality is an exercise in defeat. |
If I understand you correctly you're saying "perfect societies are for amoebas"? |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| I like that; It's ironic, as the comparison should be. You're quite a little genius, igottagrow. |
|
|
|
|
