1 edit
Dawkin's nemesis was the late great Stephen Jay Gould of course. Gould believed in a concept that he called NOMA (Non-Overlapping MagesteriA) to exemplify the best possible relationship he saw between science and the world's great religions. One (science) is an empirical, evidence gathering fact-based activity and the other characterised by non-evidence based faith in traditonal belief systems, in essence "One teaches how the heavens go, the other how to go to heaven". I think I remember Gould in attempting to explain this concept of NOMA as he saw it by describing a crocodile on land versus a lion and vice-versa, one the king of his own patricular domain. The two speak different languages in short and while Gould's concillatory view is laudable the reality is we all live in societies where people foist their deluded non-sense on top of you and expect you to bow down to some god or other which is inimical to free thought. I always find Dawkins rabid anti-Catholicism interesting and I think I am right to say his father was an Anglican vicar. He is going to develop his concept of memes in the next programme apparently which he argues are analogous to genes in his famous book "The Selfish Gene" which is contentious to say the least. He is very provocative and has called memes "mind viruses". Curiously he always strikes me as having an almost evangelical air when he starts making his pronouncements and is very quick to insult people I find but this is probably how people learn by shaking their rigid world views. It is indeed a fact though I think that your religion is determined to a large degree as a result of where you are born and the belief systems you are "indoctrinated" with by your family and I agree with Dawkins however in his central point that the religions are the cause of much of the misery in the world as a result of this herd mentality. His visit to the Holy Land and meeting with Jews and Muslim leaders was particularly depressing.
1 edit
Originally posted by Starrmani didn't see the program, but i saw lots of adds for it on TV. in the add he says that in his program shall "argue why we should disregard all religions for the sake of humanity", or words to that effect.
Starting on Channel 4 at 8:00pm (for all you UK residents) is Richard Dawkins' documentary The Root of All Evil. Whether you agree with him or not, you really should watch this: Knowing Dawkins, I have no doubt it will be confrontationary, detailed and incredibly well put together.
fine, okay, but if you were to do this you would also be getting rid of a lot of charities in the world. heck, i'm in the maths computer room at uni and my mousemat is sponsored by a christian charity! does religion cause people to harm others? possibly, but i'm not going into that. however, religion does get people to do good! charity is a major part, in my opinion, of christian living, even if it is just giving charitibly it's all built into the faith.
Originally posted by geniusCharity and religion are two separate things. Thus, there can be charity without religion.
i didn't see the program, but i saw lots of adds for it on TV. in the add he says that in his program shall "argue why we should disregard all religions for the sake of humanity", or words to that effect.
fine, okay, but if you were to do this you would also be getting rid of a lot of charities in the world. heck, i'm in the maths computer room at uni and ...[text shortened]... , of christian living, even if it is just giving charitibly it's all built into the faith.
Or am I missing something here?
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm talking about people who continually raise the same sorts of objections to him because they willfully refuse to educate themselves on the issue. They are more interested in creating confusion rather than enlightening themselves. Often this is done in an effort to preserve a faith which they have needlessly made mutually exclusive with Dawkins' expertise.
"persistently stupid" I take it that is code, for those that don't agree
with him, or maybe you. 🙂
Kelly
Yes, I disagree with those people as well.
In a radio interview on the program On Point, Richard Dawkins once responded to a caller of this sort by replying, "Do go away and read a book. They're fascinating and I'm sure you will love them."
Hilarious.
Originally posted by sjegWTF is your point? It seems you may know the least about Dawkins of those who have posted here.
If you have bought him a pint and discussed who should win the Sun's page 3 idol competition with him, then you certainly know him well.
As a scientist, I am told his work is quite reputable. But he might do better sticking to what he's good at, and leaving other things alone. He doesn't do himself any favours, banging that old drum.
Sure, even my most a ...[text shortened]... d be even more vocal (and even a tad more monotonous) than all you chaps put together.
😛
Just a question of interest (not meant to be leading): As one sort of scientist to another, what is your field of expertise?
1 edit
Originally posted by geniusDawkins suggests that evil events are created by evil people and good events (like charity), by good people and that these good people would still do good acts, religion or not. Of course by this rational evil would still happen, but no longer could it be disguised within a cloak of religion, instead having to stand alone as evil. As Dawkins puts it 'In the world there are good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things requires religion.
so is religion and hated. religion is not hatred, but dawkins claims that it causes it. i am saying that it also causes charity.
Oh, and to answer sjeg, I have never spoken to Dawkins, I am merely familiar with his work.
Originally posted by telerion(No, I'm humanities- although I have been known to converse with scientists... "As a scientist" i.e. his scientific work, not mine)
WTF is your point? It seems you may know the least about Dawkins of those who have posted here.
Just a question of interest (not meant to be leading): As one sort of scientist to another, what is your field of expertise?
My point- which you inevitably miss with great consistency (see any other thread where you bark up mistaken trees ad infinitum), is it's not his strong suit. But oddly that shouldn't stop him from being your hero, for example. I know the least about him because I disagree with you and your bum chums, then? Shut it!
Originally posted by telerionDo you hear what you write? "Do read a book, you ignorant pauper! ha!" Hilarious! What a bell end! And the irony of it all!
In a radio interview on the program On Point, Richard Dawkins once responded to a caller of this sort by replying, "Do go away and read a book. They're fascinating and I'm sure you will love them."
Hilarious.
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanI was only teasing, Starrman! But I too am deeply familiar with his work. Might I add to your quotations his ingeniously penned:
Oh, and to answer sjeg, I have never spoken to Dawkins, I am merely familiar with his work.
"Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people..."
Everybody now:
"...living for today...
oooh oooh ooh ohh ohhh!!"
If I find fault with him, it's mainly due to his choosing to pork Yoko for so many years.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseYes, i've heard the theories as well. Don't they sound a lot like a leap of faith to you? I mean, i'm not just talking about life on Earth here, i'm talking about LIFE, all of it, beginning in a place that previously had none. It is so astronomically unlikely, yet here we are. It blows my mind to even think about it for more than a few seconds at a time. Once life exists, Evolutoin takes it's course and we have everything that we see around us today, this i can grasp. But for me to call myself a Darwinist, means i need to be able to accept that 'maybe' we rained out of the sky, or 'maybe' we developed from Crystals, or 'maybe' something else.
No evolutionist will claim its a complete theory. However just like
the standard model of physic which predicts almost all of the
atomic interactions perfectly with a few exceptions, everyone knows
those few exceptions show the standard model to be incomplete and
its now, at least in that field, mostly up to the experimentalists to
drum up evidence bas ...[text shortened]... f the other theories
out there. But all that is pre-evolutionalry theory, a science of its own.
How can a believer in Evolution create a World view that is reasoned, when they cannot rule out Intelligent Design, any more definately than they can rule out any other 'theory'.
There is a gaping whole, How did life begin? Dawkins is shouting in the dark until this question is asked properly.
Originally posted by sjegThe humanities eh? Well that explains quite a lot. I should think one with your background would be less timid in a discussion and far less sensitive as well.
(No, I'm humanities- although I have been known to converse with scientists... "As a scientist" i.e. his scientific work, not mine)
My point- which you inevitably miss with great consistency (see any other thread where you bark up mistaken trees ad infinitum), is it's not his strong suit. But oddly that shouldn't stop him from being your hero, for example. I know the least about him because I disagree with you and your bum chums, then? Shut it!
The reason that you and I so often end up in confrontation is that you are in such a rush to presume everyone's positions (anti-Christmas, anti-Christian, Dawkins' anus) and to follow up with some misguided verbal kung fu on the strawman. Combine that with the smug self-righteousness with which you issue pronouncements over subjects far behind your understanding (again the humanities may have something to do with this), and you can see why I might find your insincerity worthy of rebuke.
Originally posted by Starrmanwell, that's his opinion. but there is still a lot more charity thanks to religion, IMO, that violence. so surely this good outways that evil?
Dawkins suggests that evil events are created by evil people and good events (like charity), by good people and that these good people would still do good acts, religion or not. Of course by this rational evil would still happen, but no longer could it be disguised within a cloak of religion, instead having to stand alone as evil. As Dawkins puts it 'In t ...[text shortened]...
Oh, and to answer sjeg, I have never spoken to Dawkins, I am merely familiar with his work.
also, you can argue the other way-that for evil people to do good things it takes religion. there was a guy speaking at my CU a while back who was your average thug. numerous convictions for assault etc, drug related stuff and so on. then, he found religion...and he's a minister somewehre in glasgow now...
