"Religious faith discourages independent thought...

[and-justice-for-all]

http://www.cbc.ca/bigpicture/evil.html

...and it's dangerous."

Famed UK scientist Richard Dawkins delivers a scathing indictment of religion's growing power in the post 9-11 world. Dawkins travels the physical and spiritual landscape of three great religions with pointed questions about the "process of non-thinking called faith."

He believes fundamentalist American Christianity is attacking science and he takes on Ted Haggard, one of America's most powerful Christian evangelists. He then travels to the heart of the Middle East, to Jerusalem to meet Jews and Muslims who defend their faith against his assertion that "irrational faith is back on the march" and harmful to modern civilization. Richard Dawkins holds a chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and is Britain's best known atheist. His impassioned defence of Darwinian evolution has earned him the nickname "Darwin's rottweiler."

THE TALK
Avi Lewis: "If you want to ruin a dinner party, talk politics or religion, right? Well, thankfully, The Big Picture is no dinner party, so we're going to tackle this explosive but timely subject head on. The most memorable parts of the film are when Dawkins engages in direct debate with religious figures – confronting them about the ‘irrationality' of their beliefs, and insisting that the rising power of religious extremists is a great global threat. Dawkins argues that science, and its tools of skepticism, hypothesis and evidence, are simply superior to religious faith. Case closed.

It is a powerful polemic, and makes for some uncomfortable and gripping scenes. But as Dawkins categorically dismisses all people of faith (including moderates) as dangerous dupes, you're tempted to ask whether he himself is demonstrating a certainty that borders on fundamentalism – whether his unshakeable faith in science is just as fixed as the beliefs of those he condemns.

I think it will be electrifying to see what a big crowd of people – spanning the spectrum from atheists to moderates to people of intense religious faith – will make of this in-your-face thesis. It'll be no dinner party, that's for sure."

QUOTES FROM OTHER PEOPLE:

"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
-George H.W. Bush, 41st president of the United States

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things-that takes religion."
-Stephen Weinberg, physicist

"Everything I did, I did for God."
-Yigal Amir, the convicted assassin of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak

"I think religion is a deadly threat to the survival of the species and to the continued evolution of the brain."
-Christopher Hitchens, writer

"Man cannot live without worshipping something."
-Dostoyevsky, writer

"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
-Paul Tillich

[LittleClarkie]

1. Sounds like a bit of a broad brush

Religous faith, or right wing fundamentalism?

[Poppyseedman]

11. To some folks around here the two are one and the same.

Sadly

[Dogmudgeon]

31. The usual cliché is "Religion Is A Mental Illness"

I guess it's getting a bit old, and some new versions are being tried. ("Version" = "Polymorphism" for meme-ologists.)

But I'm an odd duck amongst atheists. I've always found Dawkins to be a preacher of the One True Explanation For The Universe, and none too subtle about it. I'm not sure I accept Dawkinsology any more than I accept Intelligent Design, Thetans-n-Engrams, or Turtles All The Way Down.

Mind you, as long as the invective is being directed toward the Religious (Rectal) Right, it's fine and dandy with moi ...

:evilgrin:

--p!

[immoderate]

59. There is only one true explanation for the universe.

We just don't know it yet. :)

I don't see religion as a mental illness though. I think the normally functioning human brain has a tendency to imprint on patterns and "causalities" that may not be valid. Parsimony makes it possible for this to be transmitted with no manifestation at all. In other words, I think the tendency towards superstition is a by-product of normal function.

--IMM

[Double T]

2. blinders leading the blinded............

religion sometimes is a poor replacement and excuse for the truth and fact

[Wiley50]

3. I see this thread was immediately thrown into the God Dungeon

There is no concrete scientific evidence that God exists.

People who believe what doesn't exist are, by definition, Delusional.

People who are delusional, many times, do bad things.

Delusional people are, therefore, quite dangerous.

(Asbestos shield deployed)

PS- I've had psychiatrist before who were fundies.
I could not work with them.
How can one work with a psychiatrist who is, himself, very delusional

No wonder I was depressed.

[beam me up scottie]

15. That's ignorant and grossly intolerant.

Liberal believers are not dangerous, nor are they delusional.

I would say you have issues that are far worse than depression, but I'm no shrink.

[Ron Green]

18. BMUS

:hug:

[beam me up scottie]

19. Heh.

Backatcha, RG. :hug:

[Random_Australian]

17. Oh my. What impressive logic. Actually, not really. How about your

requirement that what we see now is evidence of absence, rather than absence of evidence? Huh?

And nice way to broad-brush enourmous amounts of believers too. Insults are just such effective tools of persuasion. :eyes:

[Danger Mouse]

36. Wow.

That's really insulting.

[lukasahero]

61. "There is no concrete scientific evidence that God" does not "exist"

Is there?

[and-justice-for-all]

65. I agree...

[Finder]

4. Atheism=fundamentalism must be the new meme...

since it seems so popular to make the comparison these days.

[BlueJazz]

5. In my Opinion, about 85% of the Religious folks should wear a shirt...

...that says: I'm insane and proud of it.

[Wiley50]

6. Here! Here! n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

7. Faith is believing what you know isnt so..

[ozone_man]

12. Ain't so.

He sure pegged that one.

[TheDebbieDee]

35. I agree....Faith is belief in the improbable!

The common sense that God gave me will overrule the faith that religion tries to nurture within me.

[nealmhughes]

8. I think he could state the same about doctrinaire Stalinists, Maoists,

Trotskyites, Nazis, racists, antisemites, etc. with equal validity. People wish to make sense of the world, and often embrace things which contain contraditions clear to the open eye, but muted in their blind acceptance.

The further one studies astrophysics, the more metaphysical it becomes.

From whence came the energy/matter (thanks Herr Doktor Einstein for that deepness for us to ponder!) that coalesced into the primordial swirl that compressed into the Big Bang?

When we see a snapshot of "space" looking as far "away" as we can with the Hubble, we are not seeing anything that has existed even remotely as it does now for billions of years! We are not looking at the present, but at the past.

We still don't understand, not deeply, the strong nuclear force, or even the realities of "north" and "south" or "plus" and "minus" poles... We know what they are, but not why they are.

The universe is full of mysteries. Some find a comfort in embracing an ultimate cause. Others do not. I do not find "religion", per se, to be a divisive issue, it is merely another way in which we differentiate one from the other. We could have chosen left handers vs. right, or blondes vs. brunettes, but we didn't. We chose religion, language, and superficial external human characteristics such as lip shape, hair color and texture, eyefolds, and melanin content of the skin.

I firmly believe in one's right to their hereditary and tribal superstitions, but also in my right to choose or invent my own or reject them at my own will and for others not to begrudge me that right, as I do not them theirs.

[varkam]

13. If we can differentiate from one another on an issue

then, by definition, that issue is divisive. Granted that some issues are more divisive than others (for example, hair color is less divisive than skin color which is slightly less divisive than religion as, to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, the most heated debates are the ones for which there is no evidence either way).

I also think people should have a right to believe what they will. But I say that with a couple strings attached. First, their right to believe what they want does not extend to a duty for everyone to respect those beliefs. Surely my beliefs aren't respected by everyone here, nor do I expect them to be. Second, when those beliefs threaten or cause harm to others, I no longer respect that right in other people. If you believe that the universe was created by some omniscient sky god, then I might smirk and feel a little pity for you but will nonetheless respect that you have a right to believe that. If you think that omniscient sky god wants you to bomb abortion clinics and crowded buses, well...that's when I tend to get a little louder.

[neebob]

21. Bertrand Russell must have been referring to some other heated debate

because in the theist-atheist debate, there's a lot of evidence one way and not the other. There's a mountain of evidence in the way all the other known things work and the failure to show. The other side's evidence consists of stories and numbers of people who believe them.

[varkam]

22. That's what I think, too.

Hence my viewpoint. However I do concede that it can't be proven to satisfaction one way or the other, but I don't lose sleep over whether or not I'll be burning in hell.

[Wiley50]

9. I snagged and copied this from GD

It's just one example
but a good one

Police: Boy Cut, Forced To Bleed On Bible

POSTED: 8:50 pm EDT September 24, 2006
UPDATED: 11:25 am EDT September 25, 2006

A couple in Palm Bay, Fla., is accused of beating their grandchildren with an extension cord and later slashing one grandson's arm to let it bleed onto a Bible, according to police.

Timothy Ray Johnson, 40, and his wife, 46-year-old wife Kathryn Johnson, both of the 1600 block of Cannon Avenue in Palm Bay were arrested over the weekend on two counts of child abuse.

....clip

One of the boys told investigators that Timothy Johnson beat him several times with an extension cord, threw him into furniture and attempted to drown him in a bathtub.

That boy also told detectives that he watched as Timothy Johnson cut his brother's arm so blood drops could fall on a Bible, the reports said. Police confirmed Timothy Johnson said he was "spanking" the boys and admitted he did threaten to drown one of them.

http://www.local6.com/news/9923732/detail.html

Sick freaks.

[Danger Mouse]

41. Wow

There's Christian love for you. Jesus hungers for blood!

[TheDebbieDee]

10. Religion has nothing to do with God.........

Religion is what some people use to get money from and to control and maintain power over other people.

Religion is the middleman in a transaction or conversation between you and God! If you cut out the middleman and deal directly with God, you will find that a lot of your internal conflicts will disappear.

Religion, and those who use it to their advantage, are the real boogeymen!

[greyl]

14. Check out his pre-9/11 "Is Science a Religion?"

Is Science a Religion?
by Richard Dawkins
Published in the Humanist, January/February 1997

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous? One of the stories told to the young Muslim suicide bombers is that martyrdom is the quickest way to heaven — and not just heaven but a special part of heaven where they will receive their special reward of 72 virgin brides. It occurs to me that our best hope may be to provide a kind of "spiritual arms control": send in specially trained theologians to deescalate the going rate in virgins.

Given the dangers of faith — and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science — I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"

Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. ...
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

[beam me up scottie]

16. That deserves its own thread, greyl.

I posited the same question in here quite some time ago, I'm curious to see if the replies would be any different now.

[greyl]

20. Definitely.

You could always bump your thread from last November. ;)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

23. Once again, this guy is looking

at the one-size fits all McChurches, I believe. There is a whole continuum out there and he has focused on the narrowest band.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. There's more time spent with the megachurch pastor

but Dawkins does talk with the moderate Anglican Bishop of Oxford in "The Root of All Evil?" as well. His thesis is that the fundamentalists are the worst of what religions can do, but that moderate and liberal religious thought can enable the fundamentalists as well, by making belief based on faith the "usual thing to do". If you can accept some of the Bible as theological truth, revealing a reality of the universe that our everyday life never will, then the fundamentalists are equally justified in claiming other bits of it as being 'The Truth'.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. Here's how I look at it

The OT is history and parable and religious myth. The NT gospels are retelling (albeit later) of events the writers claim are history. The epistles of Paul are just some old guy's letters. I don't feel that I personally pick and choose, because the tenets of my faith tell me the NT replaced the old.

But it's all open to interpretation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. But even in the New Testament

there's the frankly nutty book of Revelation, and questions of whether hell really exists as a place of eternal punishment, how far you really have to go in giving away your worldly goods, and so on. I think any discerning person will pick and choose, but it does make it difficult to say other Christians are wrong because they choose to take Revelation literally.

[okasha]

30. It's difficult only if you see the Bible as a deliberately created whole.

That's the fundamentalists' attitude: that the book, right down to the punctuation, is divinely inspired; everything in it is literal fact; God "dictated" the OT in its entirety in the full foreknowledge of every word that would appear in the New Testament. That's why fundamentalists hail every bit of historical support of any Bible narrative--eg., the discovery of a huge Roman bath complex at Nazareth three years ago--as "proving the Bible," including those parts that have nothing whatsoever to do with Nazareth or the birthplace/residence of the young Yeshua bar Yusuf. They see it as a deliberately crafted unity, like a modern novel. Any criticism or praise of part can fairly be applied to the whole.

The Bible, on the other hand, is a collection of books written over a minimum of seven centuries (a maximum of ten)by writers from varying cultures who appeal to audiences of equally varying cultures, the pieces later assembled into a collection. The OT includes the world's first short story (Ruth); one of the great erotic poems of world literature (Song of Songs); two great existentialist poems (Job and Ecclesiastes); a large dollop of Judahite palace politics of the eighth and seventh centuries BCE; a retelling of parts of Gilgamesh (the Flood);a blatant political attempt to appropriate the cultural and political achievements of the Israelite Omride dynasty to the house of David; a not-quite-buried history of human sacrifice extending at least into the time of David and reprised in the NT; a hymnal, also composed over several centuries; and a fish story with a twist of humor at the end. Etc. In other words, there's nothing uniform or unitary about it. There is no way to approach it from a non-fundamentalist point of view without making value judgements on the historicity/historical context/literary value/theological import of these various elements. Some call that "cherry picking." Most scholars call it informed criticism.

The NT, likewise, gives us four different Gospels, written from four different perspectives for four different audiences, only one of which probably incorporates direct, first-hand eyewitness material. Then there are a collection of letters, some by Paul, many by others; a diary; and Revelations, which is in a class by itself and has no organic relationship at all to any of the other books in the NT, though it does have some resonances with Daniel. Again, all of these writings have to be approached in their historical contexts.

Which boils down to: it's difficult to say that some Christians are wrong to take Revlation literally only if you share their view that the Bible is a contiguous whole rather than an anthology of wildly diverse material. If you don't share that view, it's dead easy.

And with Revelations, there's the added filip that you have to decide how to take it metaphorically before you can take it literally. :dilemma:

[Danger Mouse]

39. Interesting post.

I've always liked the book of Job. It's very poetically written. 'Do not human beings have a hard service on Earth, and are not their days like the days of a laborer? Like a slave who longs for the shadow, and like the laborers who look for their wages, I am allotted months of emptinss, and nights of misery are appointed to me. When I lie down I say 'When shall I rise?' But the night is long, and I am full of tossing until dawn.'
I eventually realized that to take the Bible literally would be nearly impossible as it would require me to do the following.
If I have a rebellious son, I must stone him to death.
I must show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.
It's okay to have more than one wife.
If a man lies with the wife of another man, both are to be killed.
If a virgin is to be married, but lies with another man, both are to be killed.
Honestly, it goes on and on. It's all in Dueteronomy. How can a literalist reconcile that to what is said in this book?
Anyway, there's a lot of great stuff in the Bible. You just can't take it all word for word.
If you did, which translation is the 'right' one? Keep that in mind too. It's enough to make your head spin.
-One Very Confused Christian.

[nemo137]

58. It's really an amazing book.

Not, maybe, in that "greatest story ever told" sense, but just in its range. Great post, Okasha.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

44. Funny, I never even consider the book of Rev

as I've always figured it had something to do with mushrooms.

[struggle4progress]

50. Even in the 4th C, Revelation was only erratically included in the Canon,

and the Catholic Church did not formalize its Canon until the Reformation.

The topic provoked some controversy for a considerable period:

ARGUMENTS AGAINST ITS AUTHENTICITY

The Alogi, about A.D. 200, a sect so called because of their rejection of the logos-doctrine, denied the authenticity of the Apocalypse, assigning it to Cerinthus (Epiphanius, LI, ff, 33; cf. Iren., Adv. Haer., III, 11, 9). Caius, a presbyter in Rome, of about the same time, holds a similar opinion. Eusebius quotes his words taken from his Disputation: "But Cerinthus by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great Apostle falsely pretended to wonderful things, asserting that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom" (Hist. Eccl., III, 28). The most formidable antagonist of the authority of the Apocalypse is Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, disciple of Origen. He is not opposed to the supposition that Cerinthus is the writer of the Apocalypse. "For", he says, "this is the doctrine of Cerinthus, that there will be an earthly reign of Christ, and as he was a lover of the body he dreamed that he would revel in the gratification of the sensual appetite". He himself did not adopt the view that Cerinthus was the writer. He regarded the Apocalypse as the work of an inspired man but not of an Apostle (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, 25). During the fourth and fifth centuries the tendency to exclude the Apocalypse from the list of sacred books continued to increase in the Syro-Palestinian churches. Eusebius expresses no definite opinion. He contents himself with the statement: "The Apocalypse is by some accepted among the canonical books but by others rejected" (Hist. Eccl., III, 25). St. Cyril of Jerusalem does not name it among the canonical books (Catech. IV, 33-36); nor does it occur on the list of the Synod of Laodicea, or on that of Gregory of Nazianzus. Perhaps the most telling argument against the apostolic authorship of the book is its omission from the Peshito, the Syrian Vulgate. But although the authorities giving evidence against the authenticity of the Apocalypse deserve full consideration they cannot annul or impair the older and unanimous testimony of the churches. The opinion of its opponents, moreover, was not free from bias. From the manner in which Dionysius argued the question, it is evident that he thought the book dangerous as occasioning crude and sensual notions concerning the resurrection. In the West the Church persevered in its tradition of apostolic authorship. St. Jerome alone seemed to have been influenced by the doubts of the East.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm

[Evoman]

25. But isn't the difference between an understanding of the bible in

a fundamental way, and a non-fundamental way, just a difference in degree?

I mean, obviously you don't believe in a lot of what the bible says, but in order to call yourself christian, you must believe or accept SOME of it. In my eyes, about 0.05 percent of the bible is historically or scientifically useful...and thats just because they must have gotten some of the town names right. But why discount one part as fiction, say Noahs Ark, but believe that Jesus was a mystic who could heal people or was the son of god? Both are equally fantastical!

To some extent, I think Dawkins is right. A lot of people find the most dangerous thing about religion is the fundamentalists...i.e. people that blow shit up, or may potentially blow shit up. But I don't. They are a big part of the problem, but not the only problem. The problem in my eyes is that people still believe in a mass of irrational lies, despite hundreds of years of progress that has shown much of it to be bunk. Its a continuum, all right, but its still all the same at the core.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

27. Do you think I'm dangerous?

I believe in the virgin birth, the ressurection, etc.

But I don't believe in any of the OT.

However, I readily admit it might not be true and I'm delusional. I guess I have good company, however!

[Finder]

29. Not delusional if you admit it may not be true...n/t

[Dogmudgeon]

33. Now for the BIG QUESTION

Do you think Science might be untrue?

Or, more specifically, might it lead to untruth? Sometimes?

Ever?

(Brief pause for reaction.)

A lot of people come near to exploding when that question is raised. We see some of it in this forum. Question Science in any way, in any of the forms proposed for it (as ideology, method, philosophy, or social movement), and put on the asbestos suit. In fact, I've been flamed simply for capitalizing the word "Science"!

Like any instrument of inquiry produced by the human mind, Science and its methods are far from infallible. This is probably axiomatic to most people who trust, promote, and wish to propagate Science (again, in whatever conception). A complementary statement applies to Religion, at least as far as it is used as a similar instrument. Such a statement might be "Religion and its methods are far from all-fallible", which contradicts the "all Religion is delusion" fallacy. Dawkins has also written on how Science and Religion deal with "non-overlapping domains" of experience. (I believe that was the expression he used; if it wasn't, I'm sure I'll be corrected. As vigorously as possible. :) Although I personally don't think these domains can either be completely separated OR joined, Dawkins' point is well taken. Science vis-à-vis Art is a similar specie of juxtaposition.

But I'll cut to the chase. Intellectual issues of Science and Religion are not necessarily simple and some aren't even resolvable. On the other hand, I have always found fanaticism per se to be highly dangerous, and will oppose it wherever it shows its gnarled hand. Delusion, which usually precedes it, isn't dangerous by itself, but marks the move into a hazardous territory of thought. Science and Irreligion have much better records than Religion on this account, but there have been a few occasions where the standard-bearers of Science have embraced delusion and fanaticism. (Examples: Trofim Lysenko -- and most of the "Scientific Socialists" of the USSR. Nazi hollow-Earth theories and their so-called disproofs of "Jewish Science" also apply.)

Delusion and fanaticism -- are they just dangers for and of the Religious? I think not. In fact, I KNOW not. NOBODY is immune to delusion and fanaticism. The fear of contracting them ourselves should make us humble, if not just a little terrified.

--p!

[Evoman]

37. Of course science can be wrong.

In terms of theories and hypothesis, science is wrong all the time. But the great thing is that its self correcting...so while it may be wrong for awhile, its only temporary. Many theories and explanations are tentative..if result come around that prove something wrong, you either fit it in or you drop the theory (although, honestly, if its a very good theory, it may take more than just one anomoly needed for that to happen).

Heres the thing...take Lysenko, or the Piltdown man, or any other fraud/error. WE NOW KNOW THEY ARE ERRONEOUS. Yes, people make mistakes. And yes, it takes time for some people to find and expose mistakes, but in every case you can mention, IT HAS BEEN DONE. And guess who found the errors...do you think it was religion? Do you think we NEED religion to find mistakes in science? No. Religion is an inferior way of understanding or looking at the world. It is regressive and no real information about the world is accumulated through religion. Any factual errors in the bible (think demons causing disease) have been proven wrong...by SCIENCE.

Scientists make mistakes..they are human. Science, if done well, will catch those mistakes. Not so with religions. I have no hesitation in calling a spade a spade, and saying that science is superior to religion as a way of knowing, and as a method of understanding the world.

[TreasonousBastard]

43. Good point...

And I'll add the question of ethics to what I said in my other post in this thread. I don't think anyone seriously requires divine inspiration in order to build an ethical system, but "science" and the scientific method itself does not lend itself to ethics. "Science" simply observes and measures things and asks how, and sometimes why, things happen, but rarely whether or not they should happen.

In the search for pure data, the Nazi medical experiments are well known, as are our own experiments with soldiers, poor black women, mentally retarded, and others. Pure reason easily leads us to eugenics, genocide, and the worst examples of capitalism and short-term thinking. Pure reason can easily turn us into Scrooge or Al Capone, or, for that matter, Curtis LeMay or Alberto Gonzales, all quite rational, but quite wrong in where their rationality led them.

[Random_Australian]

51. Only like this:

Assumption: All black people are evil!!!!!!!!

Then: There is a black person.

Therefore they are evil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Logically it is a perfectly reasonable deductive step. The problem is the assumptions made at the start are full of shit.

Science is more about correct initial data than the reasononing afterward.

However, correct initial data is the rarest of all commodities. Why? Because we encode it heuristically. For example:

A datum on a test next to "are your eyes blue" is filled in.

The person reading this encodes this as "there was a person who filled in this test and they had blue eyes"

And science eventually gets into ethics, but it takes a long time. We're not magicians.

[Finder]

46. Ask Pluto....

Science is not dogmatic.(although some scientists may be dogmaticists.) Science constantly tests itself and upon new information will change an incorrect premise.

[davidinalameda]

34. I think you're very dangerous

:toast:

[Evoman]

38. Personally, only you would know! I don't think so.

But as a group, yes I do think moderate or liberal religion is dangerous. As to whether or not you are dangerious..I don't know. I don't think so.

[Zhade]

32. "Both are equally fantastical!" - and both are equally lacking...

...in corroborating evidence.

Hence, believers pick and choose which parts to take literally and which to see as metaphorical based on nothing but their own internal thought processes.

Every believer - every single one - cherry-picks. You'd think this would open more eyes to the fact that they're essentially making it up to fit them as they go along.

I know it opened *my* eyes!

[Danger Mouse]

40. I've come to believe that...

faith is highly individualized. Everyone approaches and interprets their faith differently, and so their beliefs will differ, sometimes slightly, sometimes vastly. Of course, there are vast numbers of sheep who are told what to think and conform to a set system of laws and dogma. Anyone capable of introspection (serious introspection) and reflection will have much more individualized faith.
Typically, when people are total conformists, it's out of fear or cowardice. I've been reading a really interesting book lately about Christianity called 'A Modern Priest Looks at His Outdated Church' that was written in 1967, but still resonates today.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

45. Yes, I agree there is a cafeteria element

but as Christians (at least in my church) we are told (by Christ, actually) to discount the OT.

Not, I personally cherry pick Revelations. Or at least I take it to be metaphor. Remember there weren't any psychotrophic drugs available back then!

j

[TreasonousBastard]

42. Yadda, yadda, yadda....

Been reading a bit of Locke lately, for some reason, and he talks a lot about rationality and religion-- putting religion to the test of reason. Haven't read Kant in a while, but he had a lot to say about this, too. As have philosophers for at least 2,000 years.

The Pope is exploring this a lot lately, too, and getting too much heat on particualar paragraphs and phrases for anyone to bother whether or not they agree with his primary theses. Or to care.

One fundamental problem I have with most of these arguments and discourses is that there seems to be some assumption that human reason is just the bees knees and as good as it gets.

Which is not necessarily true.

Human reason and perception are what we have to work with, and assuming that there are no other perceptions and forms of reason out there is just silly, and not very scientific. Stuck with our limited abilities means we can only know "truth" from our own limited observations and reasoning. We cannot observe some quantum phenomena or higher dimensions and probably never will. We can't even observe or fully identify our own thinking processes. Maybe there are some out there who can. Maybe they are "gods."

Anuyway, we're left with "what works for us," and that includes both faith and reason. Revelation, inspiration, and other forms of non-rational (not to be confused with irrational) knowledge have been accepted for all recorded history. Art, religion and even, yes, science have come from non-rational processes, and rather than appy strict standards of systems of logic it's probably better to apply standards of what works in our limited universe.

So, Dawkins can preach his own "truth" as much as he wants, but he's still as full of shit as Dobson, because his "truth" just doesn't work.

[Orrex]

49. See, here's the difference

Anuyway, we're left with "what works for us," and that includes both faith and reason. Revelation, inspiration, and other forms of non-rational (not to be confused with irrational) knowledge have been accepted for all recorded history. Art, religion and even, yes, science have come from non-rational processes, and rather than appy strict standards of systems of logic it's probably better to apply standards of what works in our limited universe.

Well, you're succumbing to the fallacy of provincial wisdom, of course, which is an easy and seductive trap. In itself, the fact that "revelation, inspiration, and other forms of non-rational" knowledge were accepted for millennia means that they have a lot of traditional momentum but nothing else. They were the best that people could do with the information available to them, but as explanatory systems they have little, if any, correlation with observable reality.

It is simply false to claim that reason is "simply what works for us," as if it were really just a matter of ease and convenience. As an explanatory tool, reason is superior to faith because it can be independently confirmed. Faith is inherently non-verifiable, which an objective viewer would identify as the ultimate trump card.

So, Dawkins can preach his own "truth" as much as he wants, but he's still as full of shit as Dobson, because his "truth" just doesn't work.

Dawkins is not "preaching," and he's not talking about "his own" "'truth'". And if you think that he's full of shit or that "his" "'truth' just doesn't work," then it's up to you to demonstrate this with something a little more compelling that your own opinion. Dawkins' arguments are well supported by independently verifiable logic, whereas Dobson's tirades are supported by nothing but an extremist interpretation of ancient mythology.

Do you really fail to see a distinction between the two?

[TreasonousBastard]

53. I do see the distinction, and it is not what you think it is...

Our perceptions are limited to three dimensions, and our thinking seems to be limited to only two. The limitations of human perception and rationality are there,. and have to be dealt with.

Since we have these limitations, and can't rationally escape from them, we deal with what "works" within our own limited universe. That's science-- our hopelessly limited linear thinking. Quite useful, but not the end of knowledge or truth.

But, we haven't really begun to explore what lies outside of Boolean logic. Newton and Einstein were both inspired by something, and then went on to find some proof of what they realized through some insight from unknown processes. This moment of inspiration is often the root of great discoveries, and we have no idea what triggers it. That's the non-rational, eventually worked out to where we can understand it rationally, if possible.

Emotion is not at all rational, but just how much of our life is ruled by it? What is rational about getting all gushy over a Sinatra or Beatles song? Or the feeling one gets or the knowledge gained seeing a Degas portrait?

Theology has long had the god of the gaps fallacy, meaning that, like magic, the more we understand of the physical universe, the less we depend on divine explanations and God becomes smaller and less relevant. Rationalist philosophers like Russel have their own version-- that if we can observe all the data, we will have an answer. Both are wrong, and fail because of our limited ability to perceive everything.

And, yes, Dawkins is preaching in that he refuses to accept any possible truth but his own and denigrates possible alternatives. That is not science, but belief. Scientists, for all that some like to revere them, are not above some of our worst human characteristics, and have often held back science itself. Quite logically, I might add.

[Random_Australian]

54. What? WHAT? (Just me interjecting)

'Our perceptions are limited to three dimensions' Since when? What kind of wierd definition of perception are you using? Or is this the homonculus fallacy anew?

'and our thinking seems limited to only two' That does not actually mean anything, as thoughts are information, which does not have any real dimensions.

'The limitations of human perception and rationality are there,. and have to be dealt with.'

This bit is true. I have no idea why I included it. Possibly because I am not being entirely serious in this post.

'That's science-- our hopelessly limited linear thinking.' Science? Linear? Since when! Explain the meaning of this insult!

'But, we haven't really begun to explore what lies outside of Boolean logic' yeah we have.... did I miss something? Is this some strange expansion of the word 'Boolean'?

'Newton and Einstein were both inspired by something, and then went on to find some proof of what they realized through some insight from unknown processes' unknown in what way? When you have scientific inspiration is when your brain hits upon a good model. Sure we don't know the exact process, but it is not exactly mysterious.

' Both are wrong, and fail because of our limited ability to perceive everything.' in theory, we can 'perceive' anything that ever has an effect on us, by definition of perception.

'And, yes, Dawkins' Well, I don't know the answer. What you say is, all things bieng equal, possible, but it is not the only possibility.

[TreasonousBastard]

55. Ever seen the 8th dimension? "A few...

mathematicians claim to be able to think in higher dimensions, but it's kind of tough to prove to those of us who can't. Mathematics talks about them a lot but that's all highly theoretical, and useful mostly for science fiction plots.

Yeah, science does tend to be linear-- observation, hypothesis, experiment... It gets out of the linear when the Eureka moments pop up and the imagination takes over. But then it's back to the drudgery.

Hey, Boolean logic, Venn diagrams, even Aritostle's Square of Opposition are all two-dimensional equations. Syllogisms and sorites are pretty linear.

It's a linear trap we're stuck in, I tell ya! :)

The good stuff, like art, appreciating the song of a bluebird, or being happily in love, is way out of the logic box. As are spritual experiences. Actually, higher math, the stuff I don't get mostly, does seem to have it's own non-rationalities. Even simple stuff, like imaginary numbers and, ahem..., irrationals, have to be invented to make algebra work.

And, how do we really know there are no higher dimensional beings that we can't see messing with us? How do we know that the effect of moon on tides, or gravity itself, isn't part of a fourth dimensional activity?

We don't know, or care, because we can't see or measure it, but perhaps somehow we can sense it. Religion can get pretty weird simply because so little of it can be proven or disproven rationally, and if it is the "true believers" often just discount the evidence. But who says the great prophets weren't on to something once in a while? And how did they figure it out? I doubt it was pure logic.

No, I'm not in the least against logic or science. Quite fond of them both, actually, and they are fascinating and quite useful for what they are good for.

But, again, Dawkins stretches his physics into absolutist statements that have no more "logic" to them than a religious fundamentalist's.

[Random_Australian]

57. Aha! I'll take this stab at where we disagree first, as it seems the most

likely.

Put simply, you seem to expect the world to look different to what it does now with the addition of dimensions.

Or in other words, it appears you think we see a 3-D world and not an 11-D. :)

The non-linear bit is trying to work out why evidence counts and what it counts towards. :)

'Hey, Boolean logic, Venn diagrams, even Aritostle's Square of Opposition are all two-dimensional equations'

Boolean logic is very limited, Venn diagrams are just a visual aid, and I couldn't care less about these 'squares of opposition'

Boolean, IIRC, is 1-D anyway.

'The good stuff, like art, appreciating the song of a bluebird, or being happily in love, is way out of the logic box. As are spritual experiences'

Before I proceed further on that, I would ask: If it turned out that this could, in fact, be expressed as an algorithm in reality, would this bother you?

'Even simple stuff, like imaginary numbers and, ahem..., irrationals, have to be invented to make algebra work.'

Tsk tsk tsk tsk. You're forgetting something. That something is, the entire of mathematics was invented.

'How do we know that the effect of moon on tides, or gravity itself, isn't part of a fourth dimensional activity?'

Because we can write them in spacetime terms. In other words, we know what effect they have.

'And how did they figure it out? I doubt it was pure logic.'

Y'know, as I see it, 'logic' seems to be the core of it. But then - I do think strangely.

'No, I'm not in the least against logic or science'
:toast: I know, friend. I won't forget it.

'But, again, Dawkins stretches his physics into absolutist statements that have no more "logic" to them than a religious fundamentalist's.'

Hmmmmm... more logic I would argue, but still far too little to be considered well and correct.

Here are some after-notes, as I find it useful in attempting to understand people on the internet that they know about me to some extent - if you feel comfortable discussing the way you think, reciprocation would be appreciated.

What you call 'logic' is just a part, a portion of reason. It is a process, uncontrolled, which allows certain (very limited) transformations of information.

Information is the key for me - I can think in it to the point that it will subsume my english if I allow it.

Logic provides some transformation abilities to information, but is nothing special.

In terms that perhaps you can understand more easily, it is dead.

To me, anything in science that is in english is a mere approximation to the truth.

To me, manipulation of sets of information has got to the point where it forms the core of my ethics, morals and principles, my outlook on life, who I am. It is because these are the generated random variables that I am known as the Random_Australian.

[Orrex]

56. You're mischaracterizing reason

I don't know where Russell says that if "we can observe all the data, we will have an answer," but I'll accept that you're aware of a passage that escapes me. Regardless, he's correct. If we can observe all the data, we will have an answer. Does Russell argue that we have observed all the data, or that we are likely to do so in the foreseeable future? I doubt it.

And you're mischaracterizing the god of the gaps fallacy, too. It arises when one reaches the limit of understanding and therefore posits a definitive conclusion about the unknowable remainder. "Science can't explain what happened in the femtosecond after the Big Bang, so therefore God did it." Nonsense, of course.

Dawkins and Russell and anyone else of a truly rational disposition says "we don't know what caused X, therefore we don't know was caused X." The biggest leap of faith in science is no where near as big as the smallest leap of faith in theology, and it's disingenuous to try to equate them.

And, yes, Dawkins is preaching in that he refuses to accept any possible truth but his own and denigrates possible alternatives.

Again, a mischaracterization. First, unless you're endorsing relativism (which you may be), the term "any possible truth but his own" is a non sequitur, since it implies that instead of "Truth" there are competing "truths." I'm comfortable with that, but I wanted to make sure that that was your intent. Beyond that, Dawkins rejects "truth" that can't be demonstrated. If you can't demonstrate a truth, be it your Degas knowledge or your Sinatra gushiness, then it's no better than idle witnessing. It may be compelling to you, but that's where it ends. Dawkins, like anyone who wishes to function in reality, requires "truth" to be more than someone else's say-so.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

47. If the OP said "Religious Fundamentalism" I would agree

My faith is Unitarian Universalism and we encourage using reason as part of our search for the spiritual.

Our faith has no dogma, so we don't say you can't ask questions. In fact, we encourage asking questions.

According to Gandhi, the problem is not that all religions are bad, it is that they are all flawed, mine included. There is a great little book called Gandhi on Christianity which explains his take much better than I could.

It also reveals that Gandhi was a deeply religious man, a Hindu, and a very independent thinker.

BTW, I believe that framing discussions around stereotypes discourages independent thought.;-)

More on Gandhi here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

(Edited to fix spelling)

[hunter]

48. Science is useless for too many things. Dawkins lives in a small box.

Most of the things we do as humans are arts, not sciences. The nature of these things is not rational, and cannot be rational. Another person gets up and lives their day for different reasons than I do -- maybe entirely different reasons than I do. I happen to do a lot of things that are technical and scientific, but this is not in any way ethically superior to, say, a monk living in a remote Monastery who gets out of bed in the morning to pray.

The premise that there is some underlying and invisible order to things that must be impressed upon other people who would otherwise be quite happy to "live and let live" is the kind of fundamentalism that is dangerous, and this fundamentalism is not peculiar to religion.

As a university-trained and very enthusiastic amateur scientist, I share many of Dawkin's concerns. I avidly oppose all attempts by fundamentalists to redefine science, most especially in the field of evolutionary biology. Don't give me any of your crap about "Intelligent Design" or Creationism. Don't you dare teach it in my schools as science. Teach it to your kids at home, and I'll let you know I think you are foolish, should you ask me. I'll even write this here, casting the words to the internet winds, not knowing who reads them.

But I find the idea that everything must be rational to be incredibly stifling. I do a lot of things simply because they feel right. For example, there's no rational process that will tell me what color to paint my house, and from my point of view, none should be imposed. My wife and I, when we bought our house, made certain their were no deed restrictions or laws that would rationalize this process of choosing colors. If our neighbors paint their house a color we dislike, well then we accept that, because someday we might paint our house a color they dislike. Don't force me to live in a neighborhood where the paint selection process is rationalized by a homeowners association, deed restrictions, or historical review committees. (But you can live in such a neighborhood if you want to.) That's the liberal, non-fundamentalist point of view. The freedom I afford you is the freedom you afford me. Religion is is only one aspect of this social agreement.

If you want to live your life in a Dawkin's like non-religious rationality, do it. But I'm still gonna go to church on Sunday.

[Random_Australian]

52. Makes sense if I translate it.

Live with a mind like mine, and you see rationality very differently. It is not about getting things - anything - to conform. One watches. The end.

Example - what on earth do you mean no rational reason for painting your house (a colour)? You decided to paint it that colour, and that sounds like a rational reason to me!

:)

But be careful with that last example - different thinking styles lead to very different conclusions!

[struggle4progress]

60. Uh, there have been plenty of religious independent thinkers:

Francis of Assisi, for example, seems to have been a radical nonconformist, who completely perplexed his contemporaries.

[Orrex]

62. Way to cite a recent example!

The trick isn't to identify a handful of mavericks from 2,000 years of Christianity. The trick is to name independent thinkers who were praised for it and whose influence really shook up the church. Luther is a great example in this regard, too. And look at all the peace and enlightenment that followed his independent thinking!

Certainly the momentum of two millennia doesn't incline a theology toward innovative thinking, at least not about what is considered fundamental to the theology itself.

[struggle4progress]

64. Independent thinkers are seldom praised at first, so your insistance that

I should "name independent thinkers who were praised for it" is rather like a demand for a list of humans whose parents were wolves.

Being an "independent thinker," of course, may be context-dependent: I seldom think of the Jehovah's Witnesses as "independent thinkers," but they were real nonconformists in Nazi Germany, and many were killed for refusing to cooperate with the war machine there.

Among highly independent religious thinkers in the last century, one might remember, for example, Gandhi or MLK.

Then there are people like these: http://lacatholicworker.org/


You're welcome to dislike religion if you so choose -- it's no skin off my nose. But I do dislike stereotypes.

[charles22]

63. True.

Sadly, even saying such a think inspires censorship.

[lvx35]

66. Woah, I think I got converted from theism right now.

Thanks Dawkins, You ENLIGHTENED me...I have moved beyond my petty non thinking faith because of you...

:sarcasm:

When are guys like this going to learn the power of tolerance and understanding? If he heard my perspective out, I'd be more willing to listen to his...I do care about his perceptions.