If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
The God Delusion
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
couple of videos up on googlevideo of a documentary with Richard Dawkins, the God Delusion & the Virus of Faith. Both worth a watch...(both 50 mins long though)
I tend to agree on most of his points, but as has been raised in other threads, I dislike the fact that there seem to be those jumping on the atheist band wagon just for the sake of being anti-establishment. (take rationalresponers.com, it seems to be be staffed by lots of american teenagers intent on just that. or atleast that's the impression I get EDIT: after watching the video interview further down, I dislike them less). I dont like the idea of atheism as a religion, but neither it seems does dawkins, which has to be a good thing. I suppose it is assumed to be a religion by those it opposes, rather than those would-be members.
I also note that although a very clever man, Dawkins doesnt seem to be very good at debating with some people without quickly becoming frustrated. I suppose I can understand his frustration though. I suppose he just has an aggressive approach to breaching the topic, that's probably not going to work for every one. Although he does admit the fact that his approach to talking about the subject may not be the best in a radio interview here. In fact, after watching more of this it's worth watching too, much less emotive and provocative than the documentary's.
in the first few minutes there is a key sentence: "Is bracing truth better than false hope?". Is it?
the key point here I suppose is the distnct different between religion and science is that in science, it is a good thing to be proven wrong. where as in religion, that's not allowed.
anyways, have a watch, spew some thoughts.
I tend to agree on most of his points, but as has been raised in other threads, I dislike the fact that there seem to be those jumping on the atheist band wagon just for the sake of being anti-establishment. (take rationalresponers.com, it seems to be be staffed by lots of american teenagers intent on just that. or atleast that's the impression I get EDIT: after watching the video interview further down, I dislike them less). I dont like the idea of atheism as a religion, but neither it seems does dawkins, which has to be a good thing. I suppose it is assumed to be a religion by those it opposes, rather than those would-be members.
I also note that although a very clever man, Dawkins doesnt seem to be very good at debating with some people without quickly becoming frustrated. I suppose I can understand his frustration though. I suppose he just has an aggressive approach to breaching the topic, that's probably not going to work for every one. Although he does admit the fact that his approach to talking about the subject may not be the best in a radio interview here. In fact, after watching more of this it's worth watching too, much less emotive and provocative than the documentary's.
in the first few minutes there is a key sentence: "Is bracing truth better than false hope?". Is it?
the key point here I suppose is the distnct different between religion and science is that in science, it is a good thing to be proven wrong. where as in religion, that's not allowed.
anyways, have a watch, spew some thoughts.
0
Comments
I won't watch it, but I will add that I regard science as a religion as well. Don't you agree, that we are laughing against the scientifical theories we had centuries ago? Won't we be doing the same next millenium, laughing at the current contemporary theories? Science is always in transition and we're progressing all the time, and the number of obsolete scientific theories are increasing.
Science at least allows change, religious fundamentalism doesn't.
proving prior theories wrong is the key part of the scientific process. The aim of science is to prove through critical review and documented process that previous theories are wrong.
scientific theories are made with the intention of them being ridiculed and put up to the test of time.
religion is dogmatic by definition, which science most certainly is not, because as you said, science is continually changing. disproving old theories is progress, increasing the amount of obsolete theories is a good thing
To me that proves that religion and science CAN co-exist, not just in the world, or in society, but in individuals as well.
Also, I'm curious to know why atheists always seem to attack the big three monotheist religions. Common now, if we're gonna be anti-religion lets bash the Hindu's, Buddhists, and Taoists too. Or maybe it's that they aren't anti-religion after all, just anti-extremists... but if that's the case, why not say that? Could it possibly be that they're just trying to be inflammatory? Maybe that explains why he made a comparison between a church service and a nazi rally.
would probably find though, that those scientists who are religious would be more willing to debate the subject and think for themselves, which is the important bit. it can coexist, but if you spend too much time thinking about it, the two ideals conflict.
because buddhism and hinduism (dont know much about taoism) were based on the premise of a set of ideals which could be improved upon, and as far as I am aware are not as dogmatic as the monotheistic religions. you are correct in saying that extremism plays a part in the dislike of religion, but you then have to ask, why is do these religious extremists only come from the theistic religions? and why are they the ones warmongering?
there are atheists who are trying to be purposely inflammatory too of course, like I mentioned people hopping on the bandwagon in the OP. but it is difficult to talk about the subject without being somewhat inflammatory.
you must also remember however, atheism / free thought / rationalism is not an organisation, there is no one person who is "in charge", it is just a way of thinking.
and as i'm with stupid said, examples would be nice next time :yes:
And that's exactly why the Royal Society are so keen on allowing alternate theories to be put forward in science lessons, is it?
Science is a religion to a lot of people- the same blind faith, the same reliance on spurious facts, the same reliance on ridiculous reasons, the same fascism about other people's views.
One is based in meticulous research, study and evidence. The other, in superstitions, beliefs and old tales.
One actually never claims to be the absolute truth and invites scrutiny and criticism. The other presents itself as the undeinable truth for which no evidence is ever provided because faith is all that's needed (and because there is precious little evidence to back any of it up, of course).
Now, it could of course be the case (improbable as it seems in my eyes) that the former is wrong and the latter is right. But let's not pretend both are the same because they are diametrically opposed.
the reasons behind currently held theories are far from rediculous. any scientist holding a particular theory dear to them will perhaps be unwilling to admit it's wrong and defend it, but a good scientist will always be appreciative of being proved wrong, as it adds to the font of human knowledge. that's what the scientific process is all about.
EDIT: in fact, ignore this post, aladdin just said everything I wanted to but better
it's not a scientifically testable theory, that's why.....
the 2nd paragraph is true, however people are aware they can read into these things they read to see how credible they really, and how well other people's repeat studies have gone etc etc it's just they don't normally because of time constraints, that's why peer moderation is a good method of review, and shows things like cold fusion for example to be bad science
as said above, a good scientist will test the limits of their theory, or will appreciate that being done by his peers - since we don't know everything, we probably never will, but we can produce better working models - most pseudo-scientists are in it for selling books
aladdin put it nicely
As this nicely proves.
In any event scientists research, study, rationalise and publish theories based on what they have observed and what the evidence, however circumstantial, points to.
Kermit, do desist in trying to compre religion with science. The two couldn't be more different in their approach to things. In fact, the modus operandi of religion stands against the very fundamental principles of science.
(And to be honest the more you try to rubbish science and try to discredit it unfairly, the more you resemble a fundie. Next you'll tell us dinosaur fossils were planted there by evil scientists... or that carbon dating is all wrong )
um, that's the point. that's how the scientific process works. but the theory is often proved wrong, which again is part of the process.
So in effect they aren't anti-religion, as they so claim. They're anti-extremism so if a religion has extremests, they're anti-that religion. Wow, be nice if they'd say that. But it seems that atheists don't like to publicly make that qualification.
I ought to make a note here. When I'm talking about atheists, I'm talking about the type that make the movie at the beggining of this post, anti-religious atheists. There are plenty of atheists out there who simply don't believe in god, and maybe think it's a bit foolish too, but aren't anti-religion; and those types I've got no gripe with.
You don't half post some crap sometimes Kermit.
Intoroduction to the scientific method
No it doesn't. It does however show that notions of truth are bound up with power and money.
Wikipedia article on philosophy of science
they are anti religion because they do not believe it to be rational to believe in a deity at all. they are of course anti extremist, but generally they believe that adhering to a religion hinders your ability for rational thought, whether you're an extremist or not, you're still "deluded" if you believe in a god.
they will be more likely to highlight the more prominent problems, and outcomes from the monotheistic religions, because problems they cause can clearly be seen in today's world.
any and all atheists are anti religion, wanting to increase rational thought amongst those whom it does not come easily to because they are part of a dogmatic religion.
Not strictly true. I'm mostly an atheist (agnostic some days), yet I see that religion fulfils a function in people's emotional lives and in communities.
This is not true.
so are people who beleive in flying spagetti monsters and those who dont....
ah yes, you're right on that one.
but while it can be seen to fulfil a function in peoples emotional lives, it comes down to the question of whether bracing truth is better than false hope?
on this matter after thinking about it, I would assume there are an equal number of atheists agreeing with both sides.
also, the flying spaghetti monster etc completes an important role, in that you cannot disprove the existence of god. but equally, not being able to disprove something does not make it so.
I can see your point, and I agree that you're probably right to a relatively large extent. But there is no way that a doctrin of thought should be regarded as legitomate when it claims to be against all of one institution but only bothers to criticize some of it's elements.
Not necisarily. You can not believe in god, but still see the function of religion in society. Sorta like you can personaly not drink, but not have a problem with others drinking. Got a buddy who's that sort of atheist, he doesn't personaly believe there is a god, but he doesn't see religion as some obstacle to human progress.
am i an Apixie or Afairy, no? i'd rather not call myself athiest either since i dont have a personal opinion on any of these
being of faith requires you to have faith even in the face of opposiing evidence imo which doesnt seem a valid school of thought
religious leaders do.... thats the problem
i know plenty of religious people, who have open minds and who just dont listen to dogma but follow it in their own way, its the few religious leaders and self appointed community spokespeople who want everyone to believe their dogma i dont like
Very generally, disregarding few exceptions, the more fundamentalist the belief one holds, the more you are seperated from contemporary science. Believing in the entire Bible as the word of God and complete and accurate recollections of events, you'll find science is becoming more and more your enemy.
(ETA: apologies if i mixed up contextual and, whatever the other one is - I'm usually comfortable with just writing fundamentalist and, well, not fundamentalist )
Not true. Sience is not really proving anything at all. I would say both science and religion are equally unbelievable.
you should read 'Straw Dogs' by John Gray which shows how Science and Humanism are not alternatives to Religion in any way.