Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

actually, i'll add to my "more theology" desire also "more, lot's more, philosophy of science." contenderizer is right that it's a thoroughly self-referential observational system--this doesn't invalidate its claims, not at all, but it does limit them.

Dawkins and his ilk are just a new and not very persuasive ethnocentrism, cheerleading the western gestell on to some enlightenment utopia, i imagine.

― ryan, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 11:31 PM (19 seconds ago) Bookmark

No, they're just atheists. Atheism is not an ethnocentric concept.

atheists are the most hated minority in the US

lol

― metally ill (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 11:33 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

Look it up.

and i completely deny science has a more "rightful" claim to engage with questions concerning the origins and "nature" of the material world.

call me when religion predicts or explains one single natural world phenomenon.

I don't understand the self-pity, especially since this most hated of minorities is gaining traction.

Not self-pity, I just don't understand what damage Dawkins is supposed to be doing to the cause by being an asshole.

I know some people like to pretend that it's just about a few evil fundamentalists or something, but it's not.

― unmetalled world (wk), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:30 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

but it is. and it's got nothing to do with "evil." the real problem is intolerance ― self-righteous faith in absolute principles coupled with radical zeal. it doesn't matter whether the underlying principles are religious, philosophical, tribal/national or whatever. self-righteous intolerance is the problem, and not all religious people (or cultures) share this disease.

and i completely deny science has a more "rightful" claim to engage with questions concerning the origins and "nature" of the material world. it merely has a scientifically valid claim. to the extend that ultimate origins, purposes and meanings can't be addressed at all by science, i'd say that religion has every right to travel in these areas.

― contenderizer, Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:25 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

the origins of the material world? really? the christians have just as much of a case there? ok! im all for intellectual freedom, and it's your time and everything but yeesh

it's a self-validating system.

contenderizer is right that it's a thoroughly self-referential observational system--this doesn't invalidate its claims, not at all, but it does limit them.

i think this is a misunderstanding of how science works based on a wonky version of it popular among humanities students and faculty, but it's late

idk it is probably because I have a zillion other forms of privilege but I don't really feel that fucking bad & hated as an atheist
like being a woman has complicated my life & interactions with others more than being an atheist has
I live in a religious/conservative part of the country, too, & always have
no one gives a fuck that I am an atheist afaict

i guess that's what irritating about Dawkins, he doesn't want to limit his scientific claims to the realm of science. and i guess that's not totally strange considering that in many parts of the world science and religion are competing explanatory paradigms, but i think he'd be better served by arguing that they really aren't directly competing, and that each is best served by leaving the other alone. it's not an either/or proposition.

if you can show me a form of science that doesn't require an interested/compromised observer, history mayne, i'll believe you.

call me when religion predicts or explains one single natural world phenomenon.

― England's banh mi army (ledge), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:38 PM (19 seconds ago) Bookmark

religion and spirituality are not science. they do not "fail" because they cannot duplicate science's success. note that i was talking in the post you quoted about "ultimate origins, purpose and meaning" ― things that science can't really address.

Is anyone here arguing against the notion that the religious have a right to use a god to explain the presence of the mysterious? Most of us just think Dawkins is an illiterate boob.

but Abbott there was a POLL! a SCIENTIFIC poll!

xp

i think he'd be better served by arguing that they really aren't directly competing, and that each is best served by leaving the other alone. it's not an either/or proposition.

his self-defined aim in life, afaict, is to prove exactly the opposite?

the origins of the material world? really? the christians have just as much of a case there? ok! im all for intellectual freedom, and it's your time and everything but yeesh

well, every origin is predicated on another. therefore, the idea of "ultimate" origin becomes metaphysical very quickly, that was my point.

idk it is probably because I have a zillion other forms of privilege but I don't really feel that fucking bad & hated as an atheist

No, I agree. It's just that I kind of dig that he's an attention-seeking asshole, and don't really see what damage he can do.

and i completely deny science has a more "rightful" claim to engage with questions concerning the origins and "nature" of the material world.
― contenderizer, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 11:25 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark

oh man, really bad sarcasm quotes here

contenderizer OTM throughout

call me when religion predicts or explains one single natural world phenomenon.

this is not really what religion does/is for...? Ryan also otm about the problem of setting religion/science up as oppositional, competing paradigms, which really isn't necessary (as numerous theologians and scientists have pointed out over the centuries)

xp

this is not really what religion does/is for...?

actually it is, to a degree

People are always more like "whoa exotic/crazy/that is a fucked up thing to have believed" when I tell them I used to be Mormon than when I tell them I am an atheist.

I think part of this is I probably go over the top in explaining to people IRL how much all religions are probably awesome & how everyone should believe what they want – "bad news burger" this around the "btw I am an atheist" – try it, it works!

as a Catholic I was taught to believe that while science explained clouds, air, and trees, a loving God designed them.

but Abbott there was a POLL! a SCIENTIFIC poll!

xp

― metally ill (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 11:41 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

There's also you know, that thing about how no open Atheist has ever been elected to Congress or the white house. And how Bush I was able to say that he didn't consider Atheists to actually be citizens.

And yeah, the polls. Where people say they have a lower opinion of Atheists than all other minorities.

I get the feeling wk's main MO is not being the #1 get-along person like mine is tho.

people that attempt to use religion to predict physical phenomena invariably fail (lol RAPTURE) but this is more because they're doing it wrong than because of their being any fundamental flaw in religion itself. using religion to predict or explain physical phenomenon is akin to using a sieve to carry water, it's not what it's for.

xp

religion isn't necessarily opposed to science, but is often extremely hostile to scientific debunking of religious myth.

^^^truthbomb

Oh, baloney. It's nigh unto meaningless to say that "religion" in the aggregate is or isn't anything, so making a statement like this and calling it a truth bomb is like high fiving yourself for making a one-foot putt.

he'd be better served by arguing that they really aren't directly competing, and that each is best served by leaving the other alone. it's not an either/or proposition.

it is for plenty of religious people, though: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7028639.stm

and that's the uk, a pretty much godless country

as a Catholic I was taught to believe that while science explained clouds, air, and trees, a loving God designed them.

but that goes back to origins - there's nothing predictive or explanatory about that at all!

xp

SMC, how would you like to quantify American attitudes towards atheists, if polls are just lolsome to you?

LOL like you have a direct line on the right and wrong ways to "use" religion, Shakey? Do tell!

There's also you know, that thing about how no open Atheist has ever been elected to Congress or the white house.

Well I guess that's a better point than an anonymous poll but really most Americans aren't atheists! Like it's not too far from being a representative proportion of the population at 0, I am guessing.

But Prof Reiss argues that there is an educational value in comparing creationist ideas with scientific theories like Darwin's theory of evolution because they demonstrate how science, unlike religious beliefs, can be tested.

The scientist, who is also a Church of England priest, adds that any teaching should not give the impression that creationism and the theory of evolution are equally valid scientifically.

a priest whose a scientist, fancy that

Ryan also otm about the problem of setting religion/science up as oppositional, competing paradigms, which really isn't necessary (as numerous theologians and scientists have pointed out over the centuries)

when and only when religion stops making demonstrably false claims about the natural world, and false and harmful claims about how people should live their lives, will i accept this kind of accomodationism.

if you can show me a form of science that doesn't require an interested/compromised observer, history mayne, i'll believe you.

― ryan, Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:40 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

yes, here is a form of science with a transcendental observer... i suppose you're talking about forms of proof. one way science is not a self-referential system in the way you guys are insinuating is, it does allow new ones [via paradigm shifts]. i guess only a compromised observer values that, though, so it's all really on the same level as religion.

SMC, how would you like to quantify American attitudes towards atheists, if polls are just lolsome to you?

oh of course most Americans find atheism an anathema, it's the "MOST HATED MINORITY" language that is lolsome. last time I looked there were no atheist slaves or atheist hangings or hate crimes against atheists or mass arrests of atheists or atheist profiling by law enforcement. gtfo with your "I read a poll once" malarkey

id like to make some equation between the hermeneutic circle and the uncertainty principle but that's probably reductive. but i think the larger point is that both of these social systems have found remarkably sophisticated ways to incorporate the "observer" into their means for generating knowledge. and i think that's the key over all.

while im attacking Dawkins, i dont want to give the impression im even on the side of the religious, im not. i just see the means that Dawkins and others are using as causing more harm that good in the long run, not the mention repeating, yet AGAIN, a form of metaphysics that we should be long past done with.

maybe he is part salmon!!

sorry wrong thread

well i agree with you that paradigm shifts happen, history mayne, and yes that's a kind of quasi-transcendental. but doesnt that happen in religious belief too? people dont believe what they did 1000 years ago.

Well I guess that's a better point than an anonymous poll but really most Americans aren't atheists! Like it's not too far from being a representative proportion of the population at 0, I am guessing.

― free inappropriate education (Abbbottt), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 11:50 PM (34 seconds ago) Bookmark

nope. 2% of Americans are atheist and 4% are agnostic according to a 2005 poll. By comparison, 1.7% of Americans are Jewish, and they've had a VP nominee and many many congressmen.

when and only when religion stops making demonstrably false claims about the natural world

not all religions do this

and false and harmful claims about how people should live their lives

not all religions do this either

will i accept this kind of accomodationism.

have fun with yr jihad

id like to make some equation between the hermeneutic circle and the uncertainty principle but that's probably reductive bullshit

Abbott you the best :)

maybe he is part salmon!!

― free inappropriate education (Abbbottt), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 7:52 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

sorry wrong thread

you sure?

not all religions do this either

yes i was using 'religion' as a shorthand for 'many many religious people including the leaders of the world's largest religions'. you cannot claim that religion and science need not compete when they do, every single day.

the point is that they dont HAVE to, despite what the "new atheism" thinks.

i think this is a misunderstanding of how science works based on a wonky version of it popular among humanities students and faculty, but it's late

― if white indie hipsters could fly this place would be top gun (history mayne), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:39 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

i disagree. science is a self-validating system and a good one (coupled with logic and mathematics, other abstract mechanisms that seek to model reality or "truth"). this is in no way to fault science. i point this out simply to make clear the vast gap between scientific and religious approaches to knowledge and truth. science's relationship with the material world it observes means that it's not only self-validating, but crucially, self-correcting, self-modifying. i'm really not criticizing science in any way.

much of the contemporary criticism of religion, however, is grounded in a wholly and rigidly materialist/scientific conception of reality, and basically boils down to the complaint that religious myth is not scientifically supportable. this is almost certainly true in many cases, but misses the fundamental differences between scientific and spiritual understandings (gnosis, etc).

the essence of most religious faith is not so strongly dependent on a verifiable claim to material truth. it therefore exists, at least in part, outside the world with which science concerns itself. this is the only context in which i would mention the hermetic nature of science's purview.

the point is that they dont HAVE to, despite what the "new atheism" thinks.

― ryan, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:58 PM (33 seconds ago) Bookmark

yeah, the new atheism seems way too enamored of meme-war

the point is that they dont HAVE to, despite what the "new atheism" thinks.

yes but they DO. i have no beef against a personal religion that would not seek to oppress others or dictate how they should live, and yes I'm sure that is a kind of religion that many people already hold today. But it's not the one that gets all the headlines.

Is it ok to not care that atheists aren't representing me in Congress? Like I would seriously rather every other societal imbalance be corrected before this one because it seriously is not having any effect on my life. Maybe I am a cynic but I don't think an agnostic Congressperson would act all that different than say my representative Gabby Giffords & her mixed faith background.

Also I always thought one of the awesomest things about atheism is: you don't have to give a fuck! It is awesome! You guys should try it, it's fun. Remember the "a-" prefix! Try to be more "without" fucks, if you want.

"people dont believe what they did 1000 years ago."

Perhaps not, but many, many millions of them stand up in churches every week and CLAIM that they do. Nicene Creed dates back to 325 AD.

NB: Autocorrect tried to make that into Niceness Creed which is megalolz.