The God Delusion

[Replicant]

couple of videos up on googlevideo of a documentary with Richard Dawkins, the God Delusion (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6169720917221820689&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en) & the Virus of Faith (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5752208690443739173&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en). 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 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274161817834619566&hl=en). 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.

[Deep Fathom]

couple of videos up on googlevideo of a documentary with Richard Dawkins, the God Delusion (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6169720917221820689&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en) & the Virus of Faith (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5752208690443739173&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en). 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 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274161817834619566&hl=en). 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 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.

[Replicant]

I agree with all of that except calling science a religion.

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 :)

[I'm With Stupid]

Yep science is fundamentally different to religion, since religion is based on faith. Science is based on the collection of evidence. The theories that follow this evidence are not always correct (though they are usually the best theory based on the evidence available), but the evidence on which it is based is always factual. Now you could argue the same for Christianity for example. Based on the evidence provided in historical documents (The Bible), the people who practice that particular religion have come to the conclusion that God existed, and that Jesus was the son of God. However, the difference is that the people who have come to this conclusion will continue to believe this no matter what evidence is put in front of them as a matter of faith, whereas a good scientist (and there are bad scientists) will always review any theory they have based on new evidence presented. And this evidence will either weaken that theory, or strengthen it. Anyone who practices religion is never open to being disproven while they're still living.

[AllAmericanRageJunky]

Considering how adversely that guy thinks religion effects the rational mind, and how high of regard he holds for science, I'm curious to know how he explains the seemingly large number of scientists who manages to maintain their religion while still believing in the scientific method.
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.

[I'm With Stupid]

Or maybe if you are making an argument, it's just a good idea to use examples that people are familiar with? Just a thought, like.

[Replicant]

... seemingly large number of scientists who manages to maintain their religion while still believing in the scientific method.


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.

...why atheists always seem to attack the big three monotheist religions

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:

[Deep Fathom]

Really didn't mean the science being a religion thing, just a thought, that science itself is constantly in transition and cannot be fully relied on. But you can't really compare faith and science... :)

:blush:

[Kermit]

scientific theories are made with the intention of them being ridiculed and put up to the test of time.

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.

[Aladdin]

Kermit, you cannot really compare science to religion.

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.

[Replicant]

I'm sure they would be keep on allowing alternate theories in the classroom if they were theories formed using proper scientific process.

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 :p

[wheresmyplacebo]

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.


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

[Kermit]

Scientists, like all humans, come up with the theory first and then look for the evidence afterwards.

As this nicely proves. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6220440.stm)

[Aladdin]

I really can't see what that article has to do with anything.

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 ;) )

[Replicant]

Scientists, like all humans, come up with the theory first and then look for the evidence afterwards.


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.

[AllAmericanRageJunky]

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.
This guy doesn't seem to think so. He is making the claim that religion, no matter the degree to which it is practiced, hurts rational thinking. Science isn't a religion, but he certainly sees it as the alternative.



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?
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.

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:
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.

[Blagsta]

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.

You don't half post some crap sometimes Kermit. :D

[Blagsta]

Scientists, like all humans, come up with the theory first and then look for the evidence afterwards.

Intoroduction to the scientific method (http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html)

As this nicely proves. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6220440.stm)

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science)

[Replicant]

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.

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.

[I'm With Stupid]

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.
But equally, any member of a theistic religion is by definition anti any other religion, because they obviously believe them to be false.

[Blagsta]

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.

[katralla]

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.

This is not true.

[wheresmyplacebo]

But equally, any member of a theistic religion is by definition anti any other religion, because they obviously believe them to be false.


so are people who beleive in flying spagetti monsters ;) and those who dont....

[Replicant]

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.


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.

[bluewisdom]

But equally, any member of a theistic religion is by definition anti any other religion, because they obviously believe them to be false.Not necessarily.There are some points in some religions which are compatible - and I know many (religious) people who consider the different religions as equally valid different manifestations of God.

[AllAmericanRageJunky]

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.
Sure, I know what they claim to be. I'm just saying, it'd be a rare case where an atheist denounces a non-monotheistic religion. Why? Probably because people aren't going to make as much noise over the fact that you're critizing one that isn't part of the big three. I don't doubt that many (most?) atheists see all religion as foolish, I'm just saying that they become vocal and militant about it almost exclusively with monotheistic faiths; there is a reason, they want attention.

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.
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.

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 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.

[wheresmyplacebo]

being an athiest from a scientific point of view isn't a rigid thing, simply becuase the evidence outweighs the existence of a supernatural force, and until that changes i'll stick to my position as an athiest

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

[bluewisdom]

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.I strongly disagree with this. As a religious person, I don't have any conflicts with science - at all.

[wheresmyplacebo]

I strongly disagree with this. As a religious person, I don't have any conflicts with science - at all.


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

[Deep Fathom]

You don't have to neglect science to be religious. It is all about the type of belief - many contextual views cannot co-exist with science, which is a fact, considering the ample evidence we have around us. On the contrary, a contextual view does not have to conflict with science and I believe that the two can co-exist, just like bluewisdom is mediating. Also, different religions vary and Islam, for example, is quite science-friendly and you can as a fundamentalist be an Islamic scientist - without any problem at all.

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 :p)

[byny]

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.


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.

[Deep Fathom]

Not true. Sience is not really proving anything at all. I would say both science and religion are equally unbelievable.

Ah yes, the thought of miracles and logic. The suffering in the world, the stories of the bible, do you fundamentally believe everyone of them? Do you take them as pure fact? Most religions contradict the Theory of Evolution (note, the theory, not the proven fact) and the great pile of evidence we have at our disposal to build our opinions.

Do you agree with the following?

Humans were the first living things created. I've read history thousands of years before humans existed, and the fossils, carbon dating and everything else we can do to unravel our past is just ludicrous to use in the quest for accurate historical fact. It's all just an illusion.

I'll say it again, a fundamental view of MOST religions is a view, which holds most flaws but cannot be proven wrong. If we believe in a conservative way, and try to avoid the hypocrisy which tends to want to come along with certain fundamental religious beliefs, science and religion can co-exist, and as you said, they are equally correct. I just don't agree ;) but that's an individual subjective opinion.

F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L-I-S-M. Many such beliefs clash with science. That is true

I can't say this is a thorough post but i can't be bothered at this time. Exhausted. :( Sorry if i offended anyone. :rolleyes: I'll probably re-read this post and regret posting it.