"Religulous".....comments? (ducks and covers)

quote:

'm a confirmed atheist/(agnostic?) in the Dawkins-style

My sincere commisserations old chum......

atheist - no problem
agnostic - no proble
in the Dawkins style - I repeat, my sincere commisserations

Cheers

Don

apologies for the spellings....

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
I'm a confirmed atheist/(agnostic?) in the Dawkins-style.

So you're a reasonably talented biologist with little or no understanding of philosophy or theology, yet not only hold strong opinions on these subjects, but have the arrogance to think that because you're a scientist your opinions are more valid than those of philosophers and theologians?

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
I'm a confirmed atheist/(agnostic?) in the Dawkins-style.

So you're a reasonably talented biologist with little or no understanding of philosophy or theology, yet not only hold strong opinions on these subjects, but have the arrogance to think that because you're a scientist your opinions are more valid than those of philosophers and theologians?

Wow - quite a reaction

Not quite what I said. Perhaps my use of he word "style" was a bit misleading.

With due respect, don't we all think our opinions are valid? Otherwise, why would we continue to hold them? When we find that our opinions are different to those of others we must either feel that ours are "more valid" or we would (and often do) change them to what we now think is the most valid opinion. In any case we always hold what we currently believe to be the most valid opinion.

What I like to think I share with Dawkins is an attachment to evidence-based research, theory, thinking, debate and ultimately, opinion. At least then we can debate the evidence and our interpretation of it - not just revert to "'cos is says so" arguments - the fall back of the faithful. The evidence IS complex. There will be debate. There will be differences of opinion. Buts that's the fun bit.

I suspect that most peoples' issue with Dawkins is not his opinions per se but rather his behaviour in communicating those opinions publicly. Personally, I find his writing entertaining and compelling. It seems that many others don't. Do I feel sorry for them (reference to the "commiserations" response)? Not so much.

I'll stop now because to continue would really leave me open to accusations of truly being in the "Dawkins style".

Some people turn to religion when they have a problem.
I prefer to use google.

quote:

but have the arrogance to think that because you're a scientist your opinions are more valid than those of philosophers and theologians?

Certainly more valid than philosophers anyway.

quote:

Just saw this . Loved it, and thought it an important movie. I have never laughed so hard out loud in a movie, yet thought that message is as important as can be. However, I think that perhaps it was (dare I say it) "preaching to the (non-)converted".

Any comments?

Disclaimer - I'm a confirmed atheist/(agnostic?) in the Dawkins-style.

I second your view Winkyincanada, as I also claim myself to be an atheist/agnostic as defined by Dawkins. Evidence is the means on which to base theory, and that is why I support Dawkins.

Obviously his regular rants have angered believers, but in a world where 5/6 are believers, you have to be consistent in what you say. The term arrogant is too frequently used as the fact is an argument that can be falsified has more strength to it then one that cannot that is completely based on intuitive superstition.

I could go on to ask the question that surely the place you are born in the world has a tremendous influence on what you believe e.g. born in Jerusalem you will believe the Torah is the word and follow Judaism, born in Pakistan you will accept the Vedas as your text and believe in Hinduism including the multitude of gods; born in India you may follow Islam and believe Mohammed is the last prophet along with 1 billion others, born in Mongolia and follow the teachings of Buddha.... How can they all be right when they believe the others are wrong?

Hence evidence is necessary and I support Dawkins.

Regards,

Jon

To clarify my comment I have no huge issue with what Dawkins believes, and atheism is a belief. I just find him to be a poor academic, quite often guilty of talking nonsense. Part of my issue with Dawkins is that he abuses the language of science to attempt to validate his beliefs, it is no more possible to use science to disprove the existence of God than it is to use it to prove the existence of God. A good scientist would concede that he can establish neither definitively. Validating evolution does not amount to a proof of the non-existence of God.

The second part of my issue with Dawkins is that he does things like dissecting Aquinas's proofs, claiming that he is showing that a supposed proof of God's existence is flawed, despite the fact that Aquinas's proofs were meant to demonstrate that it is impossible to prove the existence of God in the first place. It's just bad academia that some uneducated people fall for. In that particular incidence all Dawkins actually achieved was to demonstrate that he doesn't understand Aquinas, and give Catholics and theology students a good laugh at his expense! I often wonder if Dawkins friend and fellow atheist Douglas Adams was making fun of him with his character Oolon Kaluphid, whose somewhat comical proofs of the non-existence of God are often not that far from some of Dawkins' arguments! Finally, I don't like people who have their Chair at a University bought for them...

By all means be an atheist, I have no less respect for atheism than for any other belief system, but read something by some decent atheist writers. Saying, "I'm an atheist because I read Richard Dawkins" puts you on an intellectual par with the person that declares themselves a Christian on the basis of hearing a George W Bush speech!

quote:

By all means be an atheist, I have no less respect for atheism than for any other belief system, but read something by some decent atheist writers. Saying, "I'm an atheist because I read Richard Dawkins" puts you on an intellectual par with the person that declares themselves a Christian on the basis of hearing a George W Bush speech!
Posts: 954 | Registered

That is a very good point and I have to stress that I, personally, do not come into that category. I also suspect that most atheists/agnostics are that way because they have inquisitive minds.

Dawkins claims that you can answer the existance of God as a statistical probability, which is near 0 but not quite as in doing so arrogance creeps in and goes completely against the whole premise of science.

Consider the funding and fame a scientist could get if he or she could demonstrate scientifically that there was a God??!! All the research done in the past on the power of prayer is flawed. If it followed the true scientific rules of e.g. only accepting a hypothesis if p<0.0001 then evidence becomes existent.

That has never been found EVER.

And I refer the reader to Victor Stenger's lovely book "God: The failed hypothesis".

I also thought Sam Harris wrote two great pieces: "Letter to a Christian Nation" and "End of Faith".

All the best,

Jon

PS There are two types of atheist: passive atheists who don't know about what to believe in and simply don't have a belief, and active atheists who are aware of the main organised religious beliefs and actively choose to reject them.

PPS All children up until the age where they can rationally reason are passive atheists.

Atheism or at least agnosticism is not a belief system in the sense that religion is. It's the lack of belief that defines it. Dawkins actually defines himself as agnostic and makes no claims to have disproven the existence of a god. He simply says that as there is no evidence of a god, he sees no reason to believe in one. Or a teapot in orbit around mars for that matter. I can't fault that very simple logic. Furthermore, both Dawkins and Harris make compelling cases regarding the net negative effects of the blind faith that continues to afflict the general population.

I personally am not inclined to believe in things for which there is no evidence, no matter how much I might want those things to be true.

Read also Sagan's "Demon Haunted World".

Or even Daniel Dennett "Breaking the Spell"

Looks like an interesting movie - may give it a whirl, even though (shock horror) I have a lot of time for religion. Dfjtw is spot on in his comment about Dawkins' discussion of Aquinas - the man is simply writing about something he has very little understanding of. I'd steer clear of Dawkins, if I were you.

For my part, I think that Dawkins and others writing in asimilar vein risk tossing out the baby with the bathwater. Faith has value, but I think it is often weakly defended by its strongest adherents. I've posted on this before so I'll just restate a few of the core claims I would make about religion:

God is not an object.
There are no supernatural facts.
Faith is not about having beliefs.
The claims of religion are not scientific hypotheses.

Instead, faith is a way of orienting oneself practically in the world, and with respect to other beings. It involves a kind of global gestalt switch: crudely, from egocentrism to care for others, and from thinking of the world as indifferent, to experiencing it as essentially benign (no matter what).

The question of evidence is an interesting one. William James tackles it head on in his classic essay:

The Will to Believe

I think it is possible to experience the "rightness" (as opposed to the "truth") of faith, but you have to be sincerely willing to try a practice such as meditation or prayer to get to that point. Clearly not the way of science, which does not require this kind of active engagement from an experimenter - but does that make it less valid as a way of engaging with the world? The nearest analogy I can think of is the way one's attitude to children may change as a result of having one yourself. Before, they're just messy, annoying (if occasionally cute) little animals; afterwards, your own child seems like a miracle, and becomes the object of your utter devotion. But you can only experience the true power of these feelings having gone through the process yourself.

I'm sure the analogy isn't perfect, but maybe it will help some people understand how religious faith is possible, and intellectually defensible, even if it is not for everyone.

Regards
Nigel

quote:

Originally posted by 555:
Some people turn to religion when they have a problem.
I prefer to use google.

Boom, boom

Apart from JWM, is anyone else in need of a sense of humour?

My response was simply because your crack was a bit predictable (sorry) and hardly up to your usual standards of intelligent wit.

Usually flattery will get you anywhere.
However I must admit I borrowed that gag from Simon Amstell, so I'll pass on your critique James!

quote:

Instead, faith is a way of orienting oneself practically in the world, and with respect to other beings. It involves a kind of global gestalt switch: crudely, from egocentrism to care for others, and from thinking of the world as indifferent, to experiencing it as essentially benign (no matter what).

.....Can't argue with that but ...to crudely paraphrase Tina Turner - What's God got to do with it?

I don't see how anyone gets to have a pop at Dawkins after centuries of religious twats spouting off on the matter, making little or no sense.

Or is it that only people with "religion" can talk bollox and we are supposed to respect them?

quote:

Originally posted by Jet Johnson:

quote:

Instead, faith is a way of orienting oneself practically in the world, and with respect to other beings. It involves a kind of global gestalt switch: crudely, from egocentrism to care for others, and from thinking of the world as indifferent, to experiencing it as essentially benign (no matter what).

.....Can't argue with that but ...to crudely paraphrase Tina Turner - What's God got to do with it?

Fair question, JJ. I'm interested in what remains of religion when you strip away all the metaphysical baggage that's accumulated over hundreds of years. For this reason, I tend to avoid using the word "God" myself -while trying to understand what sincere, intelligent believers who do use it are talking around.

It's easier to define the experience of faith negatively, than it is to say anything positive, but if you held a gun to my head, I would say it involves: commitment to some notion of absolute value... which is non-conceptual, ineffable, or whatever... and the experience of which has a transformative effect on one's life (that goes beyond merely being nice to other people).

quote:

Originally posted by 555:
...I borrowed that gag from Simon Amstell...

Nuff said.

quote:

For my part,.... is not for everyone.

Nigel,

I like your phrasing of the higher meanings of faith and must applaud your eloquence. I'm sure you have heard of what the great Gould claimed about Non-Overlapping Magesteria (NOMA), which states that science and religion can live in parallel to each other, as they answer conceptually different questions. Your post has this implication, which although I respect, I also hasten to disagree with.

That cannot be accepted categorically. Religion for thousands of years has claimed to explain the origin of the universe and life. Science was not around back then, so religion was what people turned to for answers. Now, with the advancement of great technology and the sound scientific method, we can ask the same question and control the extraneous factors better and better, such as dispelling intuition and superstition through carefully controlled research.

There are some brilliant points made by some great speakers and I believe those who feel threatened by them promptly claim these people to be arrogant. Take a great point made by Hitchens, for which I will paraphrase:

Mankind or homo-sapiens has been in its present form for around 100000 to 250000 years (as discovered by science). At that time, people were living to perhaps 20 to 30, death was very frequent through childbirth, or in the first few years of life due to lack of medicine/knowledge of so many viruses etc...

To put the hypothesis of god in the mixture as claimed by the three monotheistic religions, god must have sat back with total wicked indifference while all this went on, until he decided to intervene after (as a minimum) 98000 years, where he sent his own son or even, he informed an illiterate man (around 600 AD) in a part of the world where the message about his existance still hasnt reached some parts of the current world.

It is preposterous to accept this god if you realise this!!

Regards,

Jon

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
God is not an object.
There are no supernatural facts.
Faith is not about having beliefs.
The claims of religion are not scientific hypotheses.

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
It's easier to define the experience of faith negatively, than it is to say anything positive, but if you held a gun to my head, I would say it involves: commitment to some notion of absolute value... which is non-conceptual, ineffable, or whatever... and the experience of which has a transformative effect on one's life (that goes beyond merely being nice to other people).

I feel "ineffable" comes closest as none of the words you have used bring me any closer to getting what you are trying to describe.

I like the (existentialist?) enthusiasm for commitment but don't see why this cannot be relative or arbitrary.

I consider myself warmly non religious. If other people choose to believe in God or Santa Claus or what ever, well good for them. As long as they don't force it on other people. I simply hate the missionary part of (some) religions.

JohanR

quote:

Originally posted by JohanR:
I simply hate the missionary part of (some) religions.

To be more specific, there is good marketing and there is bad marketing. If something gets locked in a cupboard, it dies or ceases to accomplish its intent.

Andrew Randle

quote:

Nuff said.

Reading 100% on my oxymoron meter James.