"God" bless the British. :wah:
I can't stand Dawkins but I can actually stand to watch him in this debate. Both he and Alister McGrath literally stand and debate their viewpoints, discuss their questions and question each other in a way only the British can do: Entirely civilized and with order. I found this as a result of Ted pointing to some names so... again, thank you, Ted. I think I'll be able to actually finish listening to Dawkins without shutting a book in disgust or closing the window for the same reason.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0369344626
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
koan;1343289 wrote: "God" bless the British. :wah:
I can't stand Dawkins but I can actually stand to watch him in this debate. Both he and Alister McGrath literally stand and debate their viewpoints, discuss their questions and question each other in a way only the British can do: Entirely civilized and with order. I found this as a result of Ted pointing to some names so... again, thank you, Ted. I think I'll be able to actually finish listening to Dawkins without shutting a book in disgust or closing the window for the same reason.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0369344626
There are actually links to dozens of such debates. You might find this of interest as well.
YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
The discussion in the UK abouit religion is not quite as demented as it seems to be in the states. For one thing not being particularly religious is OK and actually the norm.
I've never actually managed to read any of dawkins boopks all the way through, he has a very boring writing style. The god delusion I looked at but didn't think it would tell me anything I hadn't already worked out for myself.
Logic and reason are not part of any faith because you have to leave both behind if you choose to be religious.
I can't stand Dawkins but I can actually stand to watch him in this debate. Both he and Alister McGrath literally stand and debate their viewpoints, discuss their questions and question each other in a way only the British can do: Entirely civilized and with order. I found this as a result of Ted pointing to some names so... again, thank you, Ted. I think I'll be able to actually finish listening to Dawkins without shutting a book in disgust or closing the window for the same reason.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0369344626
There are actually links to dozens of such debates. You might find this of interest as well.
YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel
The discussion in the UK abouit religion is not quite as demented as it seems to be in the states. For one thing not being particularly religious is OK and actually the norm.
I've never actually managed to read any of dawkins boopks all the way through, he has a very boring writing style. The god delusion I looked at but didn't think it would tell me anything I hadn't already worked out for myself.
Logic and reason are not part of any faith because you have to leave both behind if you choose to be religious.
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
As spot can attest, I tried to read The God Delusion but kept losing my ability to respect Dawkins because he made what I see as faulty conclusions... though through no fault of his own. After a faulty "therefore" there ceases to be reason to conclude reading.
Case in point: I believe he made assumptions about Saint Thomas Aquinas that I disagreed with as a Rosicrucian. He misplaced the intention of Aquinas and it made his argument irrelevant. I was willing to overlook assumption and ignorance to a point but it became too often. I do enjoy seeing him debate with someone civilized though, in comparison to the sensationalized N American style shows of performance.
Case in point: I believe he made assumptions about Saint Thomas Aquinas that I disagreed with as a Rosicrucian. He misplaced the intention of Aquinas and it made his argument irrelevant. I was willing to overlook assumption and ignorance to a point but it became too often. I do enjoy seeing him debate with someone civilized though, in comparison to the sensationalized N American style shows of performance.
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
hey, gmc, dawkins has a chapter called 'the poverty of agnosticism' in which he seems to hate agnostics more than religious fundamentalists because they're wishy washy and get in his way. lol
oh, if you read this spot, I'm finally finished the damnable book via audio book during the slow times at work. :p I'm laughing a bit more at it than i did the first time, maybe because i've finally started reading the bible. He's still a prick though. But a polite prick.
eta: I thought the filters would take out the word "prick"... um. might mention that to the big T. Meanwhile :yh_rotfl
oh, if you read this spot, I'm finally finished the damnable book via audio book during the slow times at work. :p I'm laughing a bit more at it than i did the first time, maybe because i've finally started reading the bible. He's still a prick though. But a polite prick.
eta: I thought the filters would take out the word "prick"... um. might mention that to the big T. Meanwhile :yh_rotfl
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
shush!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
I tend to think that there is a 'religious' fervour about Dawkins' desire to bash religion.
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
There are many debates between Dawkins and religious nutters and between Hitchens and religious nutters.
What I like about the debate I linked to is that they are having a conversation and it's between Dawkins and a reasonable Christian who is also a scientist.
It's easy to eliminate the fringe elements as unreasonable, the challenge should be to debate with reasonable people who better represent how religion can be valuable.
What I like about the debate I linked to is that they are having a conversation and it's between Dawkins and a reasonable Christian who is also a scientist.
It's easy to eliminate the fringe elements as unreasonable, the challenge should be to debate with reasonable people who better represent how religion can be valuable.
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
koan;1343579 wrote: There are many debates between Dawkins and religious nutters and between Hitchens and religious nutters.
What I like about the debate I linked to is that they are having a conversation and it's between Dawkins and a reasonable Christian who is also a scientist.
It's easy to eliminate the fringe elements as unreasonable, the challenge should be to debate with reasonable people who better represent how religion can be valuable.
I find that there is one problem with documentaries like these. Given that the main character of the documentary has set out to prove a point, (rather vehemently in this case), there is little in the way of scientific balance. In some instances, where Dawkins posits himself directly against a religious exponent, Dawkins proves nothing more than that a reasonable argument is impossible.
What I like about the debate I linked to is that they are having a conversation and it's between Dawkins and a reasonable Christian who is also a scientist.
It's easy to eliminate the fringe elements as unreasonable, the challenge should be to debate with reasonable people who better represent how religion can be valuable.
I find that there is one problem with documentaries like these. Given that the main character of the documentary has set out to prove a point, (rather vehemently in this case), there is little in the way of scientific balance. In some instances, where Dawkins posits himself directly against a religious exponent, Dawkins proves nothing more than that a reasonable argument is impossible.
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
You might find this a bit more entertaining
posted by openmind
where Dawkins posits himself directly against a religious exponent, Dawkins proves nothing more than that a reasonable argument is impossible.
I suspect what yiou mean is dawkins won't concede that the religious exponent is right any more than they will concede dawkins is right. You can't have a reasonable argument, faith is by definition without reason. You can agree not to agree and If people could just respect other people's right not to be religious or have it forced on them all would be well. Teach about religion and all faiths but also teach about science and let children decide for themselves what they want to believe. But that is never going to be possible when those of faith insist theirs is the only one that is right.
posted by koan
hey, gmc, dawkins has a chapter called 'the poverty of agnosticism' in which he seems to hate agnostics more than religious fundamentalists because they're wishy washy and get in his way. lol
Saw one interview when he said he was only 99.99% certain there was no god. Since you can't prove conclusively something doesn't exist 100% id not possible.
On the other hand the religious can't prove god does exist, and the religious would have it that he doesn't need to prove anything, he has been and always will be, it requires blind faith to be religious, it's a pointless debate that goes round and round but religious prejudice and intolerance has caused a lot more harm than atheists ever have.
posted by openmind
where Dawkins posits himself directly against a religious exponent, Dawkins proves nothing more than that a reasonable argument is impossible.
I suspect what yiou mean is dawkins won't concede that the religious exponent is right any more than they will concede dawkins is right. You can't have a reasonable argument, faith is by definition without reason. You can agree not to agree and If people could just respect other people's right not to be religious or have it forced on them all would be well. Teach about religion and all faiths but also teach about science and let children decide for themselves what they want to believe. But that is never going to be possible when those of faith insist theirs is the only one that is right.
posted by koan
hey, gmc, dawkins has a chapter called 'the poverty of agnosticism' in which he seems to hate agnostics more than religious fundamentalists because they're wishy washy and get in his way. lol
Saw one interview when he said he was only 99.99% certain there was no god. Since you can't prove conclusively something doesn't exist 100% id not possible.
On the other hand the religious can't prove god does exist, and the religious would have it that he doesn't need to prove anything, he has been and always will be, it requires blind faith to be religious, it's a pointless debate that goes round and round but religious prejudice and intolerance has caused a lot more harm than atheists ever have.
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
gmc;1343690 wrote:
Saw one interview when he said he was only 99.99% certain there was no god. Since you can't prove conclusively something doesn't exist 100% id not possible.
On the other hand the religious can't prove god does exist, and the religious would have it that he doesn't need to prove anything, he has been and always will be, it requires blind faith to be religious, it's a pointless debate that goes round and round but religious prejudice and intolerance has caused a lot more harm than atheists ever have.
That sounds suspiciously like "PAP" Dawkins label for "permanent agnostics"... the worst kind. Regardless of that one statement he may have made, Dawkins is quite clear on how much he dislikes agnostics who plan on permanently abstaining from a decision on the matter of God. He excuses "TAP", temporary agnosticism while awaiting the facts, as being tolerable. He, himself, is quite clear that he does not have the "poverty" of inability to decide upon the point.
I don't doubt that he said the 99.9% statement but I don't think you should mistake it to mean that he condones agnosticism. He wrote that chapter to correct any illusions on the matter.
Saw one interview when he said he was only 99.99% certain there was no god. Since you can't prove conclusively something doesn't exist 100% id not possible.
On the other hand the religious can't prove god does exist, and the religious would have it that he doesn't need to prove anything, he has been and always will be, it requires blind faith to be religious, it's a pointless debate that goes round and round but religious prejudice and intolerance has caused a lot more harm than atheists ever have.
That sounds suspiciously like "PAP" Dawkins label for "permanent agnostics"... the worst kind. Regardless of that one statement he may have made, Dawkins is quite clear on how much he dislikes agnostics who plan on permanently abstaining from a decision on the matter of God. He excuses "TAP", temporary agnosticism while awaiting the facts, as being tolerable. He, himself, is quite clear that he does not have the "poverty" of inability to decide upon the point.
I don't doubt that he said the 99.9% statement but I don't think you should mistake it to mean that he condones agnosticism. He wrote that chapter to correct any illusions on the matter.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
koan;1343579 wrote: There are many debates between Dawkins and religious nutters and between Hitchens and religious nutters.
What I like about the debate I linked to is that they are having a conversation and it's between Dawkins and a reasonable Christian who is also a scientist.
It's easy to eliminate the fringe elements as unreasonable, the challenge should be to debate with reasonable people who better represent how religion can be valuable.
Let's cut to the chase! If you want well reasoned legitimate debates about whether or not God exists, they are not going to involve either Hitchens or Dawkins, or any others who have taken up philosophy as a hobby. Go to a place like the Secular Web for quality debates, and other resources on atheism, agnosticism, naturalism etc.
What I like about the debate I linked to is that they are having a conversation and it's between Dawkins and a reasonable Christian who is also a scientist.
It's easy to eliminate the fringe elements as unreasonable, the challenge should be to debate with reasonable people who better represent how religion can be valuable.
Let's cut to the chase! If you want well reasoned legitimate debates about whether or not God exists, they are not going to involve either Hitchens or Dawkins, or any others who have taken up philosophy as a hobby. Go to a place like the Secular Web for quality debates, and other resources on atheism, agnosticism, naturalism etc.
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
koan;1343713 wrote: That sounds suspiciously like "PAP" Dawkins label for "permanent agnostics"... the worst kind. Regardless of that one statement he may have made, Dawkins is quite clear on how much he dislikes agnostics who plan on permanently abstaining from a decision on the matter of God. He excuses "TAP", temporary agnosticism while awaiting the facts, as being tolerable. He, himself, is quite clear that he does not have the "poverty" of inability to decide upon the point.
I don't doubt that he said the 99.9% statement but I don't think you should mistake it to mean that he condones agnosticism. He wrote that chapter to correct any illusions on the matter.
I don't really care what he thinks he's just one writer on the subject representing no one but himself. The media, particularly the american media, find it easier to represent atheists as a coherent body necassarily adversarial to religion. The reality is it's more to do with what kind of society we want to live in, a secular one or a religious one. Hre just happened to publish his book at the right time. The majority of people are secular in disposition, regardless of religious belief or lack of it, for the simple reason they want the freedom to live life as they choose without interference. The matter is becoming an issue because of the increasing assertiveness of fundamentalists who want to turn the clock back on human rights and impose their brand of religion on everybody and are willing to use violence and intimidation to get their way. It's very different in the UK as it quickly becomes sectarian and people back away from that and the violence that could result and the british population is by and large not terribly bothered about religion but the rise in the number of faith schoold is something we will regret in the years to come imo.
posted by recovering conservative
Let's cut to the chase! If you want well reasoned legitimate debates about whether or not God exists, they are not going to involve either Hitchens or Dawkins, or any others who have taken up philosophy as a hobby. Go to a place like the Secular Web for quality debates, and other resources on atheism, agnosticism, naturalism etc.
You can have a polite debate but you cabnnot have a reasoned debate about whether god exists because faith requires the suspension of reason and blind acceptance that there is a god. there will never be agreement just a decision to leave each other alone to worship as they please. But it works both ways it's not secularists wanting to ban religion that is the problem it is religious groups trying to ban the teaching of science and anything they think challenges their faith.
What is it anmnoys you about hitchens and dawkins? their manner, do you find their arguments flawed or is it you find yourself persuaded by them?
dawkins i find interesting in debate I've never actually read any of his books all the way through - always think he could make the opiouint in half the words. The god delusion wasn't coming out with anything any well read individual would have worked out for themselves anyway. I've never even looked at any of Hitchens books, he's interesting but not enough to make me want to read them and wanting to declare war on islam has never struck me as a terribly logical approach to the problem. Might have a look out of curiosity sometime.
I don't doubt that he said the 99.9% statement but I don't think you should mistake it to mean that he condones agnosticism. He wrote that chapter to correct any illusions on the matter.
I don't really care what he thinks he's just one writer on the subject representing no one but himself. The media, particularly the american media, find it easier to represent atheists as a coherent body necassarily adversarial to religion. The reality is it's more to do with what kind of society we want to live in, a secular one or a religious one. Hre just happened to publish his book at the right time. The majority of people are secular in disposition, regardless of religious belief or lack of it, for the simple reason they want the freedom to live life as they choose without interference. The matter is becoming an issue because of the increasing assertiveness of fundamentalists who want to turn the clock back on human rights and impose their brand of religion on everybody and are willing to use violence and intimidation to get their way. It's very different in the UK as it quickly becomes sectarian and people back away from that and the violence that could result and the british population is by and large not terribly bothered about religion but the rise in the number of faith schoold is something we will regret in the years to come imo.
posted by recovering conservative
Let's cut to the chase! If you want well reasoned legitimate debates about whether or not God exists, they are not going to involve either Hitchens or Dawkins, or any others who have taken up philosophy as a hobby. Go to a place like the Secular Web for quality debates, and other resources on atheism, agnosticism, naturalism etc.
You can have a polite debate but you cabnnot have a reasoned debate about whether god exists because faith requires the suspension of reason and blind acceptance that there is a god. there will never be agreement just a decision to leave each other alone to worship as they please. But it works both ways it's not secularists wanting to ban religion that is the problem it is religious groups trying to ban the teaching of science and anything they think challenges their faith.
What is it anmnoys you about hitchens and dawkins? their manner, do you find their arguments flawed or is it you find yourself persuaded by them?
dawkins i find interesting in debate I've never actually read any of his books all the way through - always think he could make the opiouint in half the words. The god delusion wasn't coming out with anything any well read individual would have worked out for themselves anyway. I've never even looked at any of Hitchens books, he's interesting but not enough to make me want to read them and wanting to declare war on islam has never struck me as a terribly logical approach to the problem. Might have a look out of curiosity sometime.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
gmc;1343893 wrote: I don't really care what he thinks he's just one writer on the subject representing no one but himself. The media, particularly the american media, find it easier to represent atheists as a coherent body necassarily adversarial to religion.
Never mind the media! We can see that happening in another thread here. Every time I see a religious zealot using capital "A" - atheist, I know that they are not interested in understanding our POV, and think we're just another competing religion.
The reality is it's more to do with what kind of society we want to live in, a secular one or a religious one. Hre just happened to publish his book at the right time. The majority of people are secular in disposition, regardless of religious belief or lack of it, for the simple reason they want the freedom to live life as they choose without interference. The matter is becoming an issue because of the increasing assertiveness of fundamentalists who want to turn the clock back on human rights and impose their brand of religion on everybody and are willing to use violence and intimidation to get their way. It's very different in the UK as it quickly becomes sectarian and people back away from that and the violence that could result and the british population is by and large not terribly bothered about religion but the rise in the number of faith schoold is something we will regret in the years to come imo.
I don't have a first-hand knowledge of what's going on in England; but the first question I have is "what do you define as secular society?" I thought the problem was the enthusiastic embrace of charter schooling; which has allowed children from different cultural and religious backgrounds to be kept in their own separate little bubbles.
If we try to expunge any reference to religion from public discourse, or the public square, then we end up with the religious majority feeling that an atheist minority is attacking their rights. Is it really necessary to demand the removal of manger scenes from downtown, so that they can be replaced with Santa and his reindeer? The secular celebration of Christmas is all about greed and and maxing out credit cards to buy junk that most people don't want in the first place. But the hyper-marketing campaigns of retailers have been assisted by a rigid adherence to secularism -- because if Jesus is removed....Santa is left all by himself standing in his place! So the kids get to sing those non-religious Christmas carols in public school about Santa bringing presents.....I don't exactly see it as a step up!
posted by recovering conservative
You can have a polite debate but you cabnnot have a reasoned debate about whether god exists because faith requires the suspension of reason and blind acceptance that there is a god. there will never be agreement just a decision to leave each other alone to worship as they please.
If you are going to insist on defining faith as accepting a belief premise without clear evidence, then every belief position is faith-based, including atheism; even Dawkins claims to be agnostic about the question of whether it is possible to know that God does not exist.
In order to build science from the ground up, we have had to start with a few basic assumptions about the world that could not be proven in advance. Such as whether or not the Universe is knowable to begin with, through observation and the gathering of empirical evidence. Most modern theoretical physicists develop models that begin with all four forces unified in a single force during stages of high energy, such as the Big Bang. So far, they have found it easy to unify electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces.....but gravity.....even though attempts to develop a quantum theory of gravity have been so elusive, they seem to adhere to the belief in a Grand Unified Theory. It may not be considered faith-based thinking, but it sure looks a lot like it to the outsider.
But it works both ways it's not secularists wanting to ban religion that is the problem it is religious groups trying to ban the teaching of science and anything they think challenges their faith.
Yes it is! And if you were hoping that I had an easy answer to solve this problem, you'll be disappointed! Religions have been, and always will be, difficult to deal with. It's impossible to know when they are going to get their backs up, and close their eyes and plug their ears to new scientific evidence; but one thing I am sure of, is that if you raise the threat level, by telling them that the theory of evolution is incompatible with their belief in God, then you end up with a lot more fundamentalists who want to turn the clock back to...about 1955.
What is it anmnoys you about hitchens and dawkins? their manner, do you find their arguments flawed or is it you find yourself persuaded by them?
I don't like their manner, and if I was going to give an example of flawed arguments from each, first Hitch has contended in debates where he gets into holocausts, religious wars, and other religious violence, that there are no equivalent secular examples.
He claims that following enlightenment principles cannot lead to tyranny. And Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, are not secular humanists by that definition.
Maybe his opponent was searching for an atheist example and couldn't come up with one, because if he had mentioned the French Revolution, and the resulting Reign of Terror, this would have been a clear example of leaders claiming to following the principles of reason to create a bloodbath. Robespierre, the Jacobins, and other enlightened leaders of the Revolution were not atheists -- but they were deists -- which would have been the same thing in the 18th century, before materialists had evolution and modern cosmology to explain nature.
And Dawkins -- there have been a number of philosophers who have complained about him using his renown as a biologist on a stage where he does not use, or is probably not even aware of many of the more sophisticated, nuanced arguments between philosophers and theologians on the God question. In his God Delusion book, he attacks the simplest arguments that theologians use to explain God -- such as St. Anselm's Proslogian, which was written long before physicists weighed in on the issues of existence and non-existence.
The big problem with Dawkins's way of thinking -- and why I think it is at least theoretically possible that his version of enlightened thinking could lead to tyranny -- is that his notion of memes propagating all ideas, can be taken to the conclusion (which he does in some of his essays) that superstition and supernatural beliefs wouldn't exist without religion....religion is the bad collection of mind viruses, and science the good one in his essay: Viruses Of The Mind.
In brief, this is where the available scientific evidence of where supernaturalism comes from, is leading towards:
Religion and other forms of magical thinking continue to thrive, in spite of a lack of evidence and the advance of science, because people are naturally biased to accept a role for the irrational in their daily lives, according to Bruce Hood, Professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol.
This evolved credulity suggests that it will be impossible to root out belief in ideas such as creationism and paranormal phenomena, even though they have been refuted by evidence and are held as a matter of faith alone.
People ultimately believe in them for the same reasons as they attach sentimental value to inanimate objects like wedding rings or teddy bears, and recoil from artefacts linked to evil, as if they are pervaded by a physical "essence".
Even the most rational people behave in these irrational ways, and supernatural beliefs are part of the same continuum, Professor Hood told the British Association Festival of Science in Norwich today.
Human brain naturally inclined towards the supernatural - Times Online
Those are the important bullet points of what Hood covers in his book "Supersense," and I would recommend it for anyone who wonders why beliefs in spirits, ghosts etc. etc. are so pervasive, and never go away....even in the most secular humanistic societies.
As for memes -- I've read recently that psychologist - Susan Blackmore - one of the few scientists trying to research memetics, is shifting away from the theory...or at least believes that memes are an incomplete explanation of how ideas and cultural beliefs are propagated.
Never mind the media! We can see that happening in another thread here. Every time I see a religious zealot using capital "A" - atheist, I know that they are not interested in understanding our POV, and think we're just another competing religion.
The reality is it's more to do with what kind of society we want to live in, a secular one or a religious one. Hre just happened to publish his book at the right time. The majority of people are secular in disposition, regardless of religious belief or lack of it, for the simple reason they want the freedom to live life as they choose without interference. The matter is becoming an issue because of the increasing assertiveness of fundamentalists who want to turn the clock back on human rights and impose their brand of religion on everybody and are willing to use violence and intimidation to get their way. It's very different in the UK as it quickly becomes sectarian and people back away from that and the violence that could result and the british population is by and large not terribly bothered about religion but the rise in the number of faith schoold is something we will regret in the years to come imo.
I don't have a first-hand knowledge of what's going on in England; but the first question I have is "what do you define as secular society?" I thought the problem was the enthusiastic embrace of charter schooling; which has allowed children from different cultural and religious backgrounds to be kept in their own separate little bubbles.
If we try to expunge any reference to religion from public discourse, or the public square, then we end up with the religious majority feeling that an atheist minority is attacking their rights. Is it really necessary to demand the removal of manger scenes from downtown, so that they can be replaced with Santa and his reindeer? The secular celebration of Christmas is all about greed and and maxing out credit cards to buy junk that most people don't want in the first place. But the hyper-marketing campaigns of retailers have been assisted by a rigid adherence to secularism -- because if Jesus is removed....Santa is left all by himself standing in his place! So the kids get to sing those non-religious Christmas carols in public school about Santa bringing presents.....I don't exactly see it as a step up!
posted by recovering conservative
You can have a polite debate but you cabnnot have a reasoned debate about whether god exists because faith requires the suspension of reason and blind acceptance that there is a god. there will never be agreement just a decision to leave each other alone to worship as they please.
If you are going to insist on defining faith as accepting a belief premise without clear evidence, then every belief position is faith-based, including atheism; even Dawkins claims to be agnostic about the question of whether it is possible to know that God does not exist.
In order to build science from the ground up, we have had to start with a few basic assumptions about the world that could not be proven in advance. Such as whether or not the Universe is knowable to begin with, through observation and the gathering of empirical evidence. Most modern theoretical physicists develop models that begin with all four forces unified in a single force during stages of high energy, such as the Big Bang. So far, they have found it easy to unify electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces.....but gravity.....even though attempts to develop a quantum theory of gravity have been so elusive, they seem to adhere to the belief in a Grand Unified Theory. It may not be considered faith-based thinking, but it sure looks a lot like it to the outsider.
But it works both ways it's not secularists wanting to ban religion that is the problem it is religious groups trying to ban the teaching of science and anything they think challenges their faith.
Yes it is! And if you were hoping that I had an easy answer to solve this problem, you'll be disappointed! Religions have been, and always will be, difficult to deal with. It's impossible to know when they are going to get their backs up, and close their eyes and plug their ears to new scientific evidence; but one thing I am sure of, is that if you raise the threat level, by telling them that the theory of evolution is incompatible with their belief in God, then you end up with a lot more fundamentalists who want to turn the clock back to...about 1955.
What is it anmnoys you about hitchens and dawkins? their manner, do you find their arguments flawed or is it you find yourself persuaded by them?
I don't like their manner, and if I was going to give an example of flawed arguments from each, first Hitch has contended in debates where he gets into holocausts, religious wars, and other religious violence, that there are no equivalent secular examples.
He claims that following enlightenment principles cannot lead to tyranny. And Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, are not secular humanists by that definition.
Maybe his opponent was searching for an atheist example and couldn't come up with one, because if he had mentioned the French Revolution, and the resulting Reign of Terror, this would have been a clear example of leaders claiming to following the principles of reason to create a bloodbath. Robespierre, the Jacobins, and other enlightened leaders of the Revolution were not atheists -- but they were deists -- which would have been the same thing in the 18th century, before materialists had evolution and modern cosmology to explain nature.
And Dawkins -- there have been a number of philosophers who have complained about him using his renown as a biologist on a stage where he does not use, or is probably not even aware of many of the more sophisticated, nuanced arguments between philosophers and theologians on the God question. In his God Delusion book, he attacks the simplest arguments that theologians use to explain God -- such as St. Anselm's Proslogian, which was written long before physicists weighed in on the issues of existence and non-existence.
The big problem with Dawkins's way of thinking -- and why I think it is at least theoretically possible that his version of enlightened thinking could lead to tyranny -- is that his notion of memes propagating all ideas, can be taken to the conclusion (which he does in some of his essays) that superstition and supernatural beliefs wouldn't exist without religion....religion is the bad collection of mind viruses, and science the good one in his essay: Viruses Of The Mind.
In brief, this is where the available scientific evidence of where supernaturalism comes from, is leading towards:
Religion and other forms of magical thinking continue to thrive, in spite of a lack of evidence and the advance of science, because people are naturally biased to accept a role for the irrational in their daily lives, according to Bruce Hood, Professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol.
This evolved credulity suggests that it will be impossible to root out belief in ideas such as creationism and paranormal phenomena, even though they have been refuted by evidence and are held as a matter of faith alone.
People ultimately believe in them for the same reasons as they attach sentimental value to inanimate objects like wedding rings or teddy bears, and recoil from artefacts linked to evil, as if they are pervaded by a physical "essence".
Even the most rational people behave in these irrational ways, and supernatural beliefs are part of the same continuum, Professor Hood told the British Association Festival of Science in Norwich today.
Human brain naturally inclined towards the supernatural - Times Online
Those are the important bullet points of what Hood covers in his book "Supersense," and I would recommend it for anyone who wonders why beliefs in spirits, ghosts etc. etc. are so pervasive, and never go away....even in the most secular humanistic societies.
As for memes -- I've read recently that psychologist - Susan Blackmore - one of the few scientists trying to research memetics, is shifting away from the theory...or at least believes that memes are an incomplete explanation of how ideas and cultural beliefs are propagated.
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
Oh, thank God "memes" are headed towards the garbage dump. :p
hehe
gmc, I'm disturbed that you don't care what Dawkins says and haven't read any of his books since you were arguing vehemently against what is being said about him and his ilk in the "I Don't believe in Atheists" thread. I understand now why you had so much trouble understanding what was being said.
hehe
gmc, I'm disturbed that you don't care what Dawkins says and haven't read any of his books since you were arguing vehemently against what is being said about him and his ilk in the "I Don't believe in Atheists" thread. I understand now why you had so much trouble understanding what was being said.
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
posted by recovering conservative
I don't have a first-hand knowledge of what's going on in England; but the first question I have is "what do you define as secular society?" I thought the problem was the enthusiastic embrace of charter schooling; which has allowed children from different cultural and religious backgrounds to be kept in their own separate little bubbles.
Actually neither do I. It's a united kingdom, Scotland and England kept their separate church, education and legal systems.
Most people in the UK are secular in that they are nominally Christian but most don't attend church or practice any religion and really really don't want religious leaders trying to dictate how we live our lives. We have establishment churches but the majority of the population are irreligious and the pronouncements of the church and religious leaders have little real impact. Not being religious is not a bar to public office any more than being one is people generally don't care what your religion is unless you make it an issue - there are several muslim MP's for instance representing mainly "Christian" constituencies. At the last election all the christian candidates (yes we do have a christian party) lost their deposits.
That is what I mean by secular.
Religion in the United Kingdom: Diversity, Trends and Decline
posted by recovering conservative
If we try to expunge any reference to religion from public discourse, or the public square, then we end up with the religious majority feeling that an atheist minority is attacking their rights. Is it really necessary to demand the removal of manger scenes from downtown, so that they can be replaced with Santa and his reindeer? The secular celebration of Christmas is all about greed and and maxing out credit cards to buy junk that most people don't want in the first place. But the hyper-marketing campaigns of retailers have been assisted by a rigid adherence to secularism -- because if Jesus is removed....Santa is left all by himself standing in his place! So the kids get to sing those non-religious Christmas carols in public school about Santa bringing presents.....I don't exactly see it as a step up!
That's one viewpoint and I would agree some of the things our councils get up to are ridiculous. On the whole though we don't try and expunge any reference to religion from public discourse - besides we don't have people demanding public prayers and insisting we stop teaching about evolution or give creationism equal standing. Or rather there are but most people can't be bothered with them, sadly some councils feel they have to humour the superstitious but generally the kids, in my experience, are the ones that find it silly. In scotland the teaching of religious studies is actually compulsory and sectarianism is a constant problem so these things are often discussed quite openly it's also one of the reasons you will find most scots opinionated about religion.
You can't impose a secular attitude you kind of grow in to it as a society. The commercialisation of christmas is hardly due to secularism - the biggest culprit in that field is the united states - that most Christian of countries. The red Santa was created by the coca cola company as a sales gimmick. Besides why is that a problem? Christmas was originally a pagan festival that was hijacked by the Christian church anyway and you do not need to join in with the commercialisation. In a northern climate at that time of year the days are starting to get longer and the first signs that winter is more than half way through people's spirits start to rise, it's also the time when the last of the animals were slaughtered and people had a feast. It's visceral feeling of well being that make people want to celebrate and the christian church couldn't stop what they saw as pagan celebrations, so they pinched it - well that's my take on the issue. You don't have to join in the commercialisation if you don't want to - aren't you glad you're not forced to go join in the religious services either? That's because you live in a secular society, where freedom from religious persecution for non conformity is the norm.
posted by recovering conservative
If you are going to insist on defining faith as accepting a belief premise without clear evidence, then every belief position is faith-based, including atheism; even Dawkins claims to be agnostic about the question of whether it is possible to know that God does not exist.
Playing with semantics a wee bit there are you not? The main question is, I suppose, what is the meaning of life and how did we get there.
You look round for an explanation and one of those put forward is god, - some supreme being that made it all happen. Which begs the question of who made him but leaving that aside. When you can't explain what is happening in the world around you and bad things keep happening finding someone to blame or appeal to for help might seem a reasonable thing to believe. But there is no evidence god exists unless you choose to interpret what you see around you as proof of an unseen hand. But of he does he seems to be a fickle vindictive type of being. maybe there is more than one and appealing to the wrong one might be the problem. So it goes on. Leaving aside believing in god for the moment you can see the appeal of creating a religion to those who would be in control of others, believe as I tell you or you will go to hell ---- whatever. What's the first commandment?
You shall have no other gods before Me
Religion is a man made creation. Once they came up with the nicene creed and deemed anyone that didn't believe what they were told religion has been going downhill ever since.
There is no proof that god exists except if you choose to have faith, believe the explanation there is a god. It is not reasonable because there if it was you would be able to prove conclusively there was one and you wouldn't need faith. I don't have to prove there is no god because you can't prove something isn't there it's up to those who claim there is to make their case. But they can't so we have religion and superstition instead with the proof of god usually being based on the bible and the plaintive defence - if not god then what?
posted by recovering conservative
Yes it is! And if you were hoping that I had an easy answer to solve this problem, you'll be disappointed!
I don't have an answer either, as it happens I am atheist but get fed up saying agnostic to deflect the more rabid religionists who seem to think I am attacking their faith by not sharing it. You will not be surprised to know I don't have a solution either except you have to keep talking. Those who stop talking and reasoning and listening to others are one step away from violence
I don't like their manner, and if I was going to give an example of flawed arguments from each, first Hitch has contended in debates where he gets into holocausts, religious wars, and other religious violence, that there are no equivalent secular examples.
I don't either as it happens, hitchens is a bit of a sleaze ball but makes some good points. Dawkins also makes some good points but is a boring writer.
posted by recovering conservative
He claims that following enlightenment principles cannot lead to tyranny. And Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, are not secular humanists by that definition.
Well no they're not are they. They weren't religious but what they did wasn't inspired by them being atheists either. he does make a valid point
popsted by recovering conservative.
Maybe his opponent was searching for an atheist example and couldn't come up with one, because if he had mentioned the French Revolution, and the resulting Reign of Terror, this would have been a clear example of leaders claiming to following the principles of reason to create a bloodbath. Robespierre, the Jacobins, and other enlightened leaders of the Revolution were not atheists -- but they were deists -- which would have been the same thing in the 18th century, before materialists had evolution and modern cosmology to explain nature.
But what they did was not because they were deists to impose their will and believe system on others. It was revenge against the ancien regime and all it stood for and the church establishment that backed it up backed enthusiastically by the populace out for blood. - nor did they claim any moral high ground like doing god's work to justify the barbarity it was payback. You can find an awful lot more reigns of terror and atrocities committed in the name of religion by the religious on those who also believed in god, but the wrong version of it.
posted by recovering conservative.
The big problem with Dawkins's way of thinking -- and why I think it is at least theoretically possible that his version of enlightened thinking could lead to tyranny -- is that his notion of memes propagating all ideas, can be taken to the conclusion (which he does in some of his essays) that superstition and supernatural beliefs wouldn't exist without religion....religion is the bad collection of mind viruses, and science the good one in his essay: Viruses Of The Mind.
Dawkins too has some interesting ideas but is pretty boring not do i find some of his notions convincing. Neither hitchens or dawkins speak for anyone but themselves, it's not like the pope or the archbishop of canterbury who claim to speak for god and all their followers.
posted by Koan
gmc, I'm disturbed that you don't care what Dawkins says and haven't read any of his books since you were arguing vehemently against what is being said about him and his ilk in the "I Don't believe in Atheists" thread. I understand now why you had so much trouble understanding what was being said.
I was arguing against the ridiculous notion of the new atheists. I don't care what he says, why should I? He is just another writer on the subject not the spokesman for some mass movement as you seem to think. I don't need to agree with or even know what his theories are although know the gist of it, nor am I terribly interested in the detail of his theories. I might read them someday but I'm not a scientist and find history more interesting
He is NOT a guru or high priest whose words all must agree with. He's got his own theories you can read them if you want. The god delusion wasn't actually anything new it merely made things more accessible for people. I read the first chapter or so and decided it was really boring and not very original. Hitchens isn't a guru either. Although I can understand how someone who is religious might see them that way since they can't think for themselves they assume anyone not sharing their belief must be following something else.
You do not need to agree with either hitchens or dawkins to be an atheist or an agnostic, they haven't written an atheist bible or anything remotely like it they speak for themselves and publicise their books, all that's happened is they have touched a chord with a lot of people, especially in the states it seems, fed up with the lunatic fringes of the christian church setting the pace.
I don't have a first-hand knowledge of what's going on in England; but the first question I have is "what do you define as secular society?" I thought the problem was the enthusiastic embrace of charter schooling; which has allowed children from different cultural and religious backgrounds to be kept in their own separate little bubbles.
Actually neither do I. It's a united kingdom, Scotland and England kept their separate church, education and legal systems.
Most people in the UK are secular in that they are nominally Christian but most don't attend church or practice any religion and really really don't want religious leaders trying to dictate how we live our lives. We have establishment churches but the majority of the population are irreligious and the pronouncements of the church and religious leaders have little real impact. Not being religious is not a bar to public office any more than being one is people generally don't care what your religion is unless you make it an issue - there are several muslim MP's for instance representing mainly "Christian" constituencies. At the last election all the christian candidates (yes we do have a christian party) lost their deposits.
That is what I mean by secular.
Religion in the United Kingdom: Diversity, Trends and Decline
posted by recovering conservative
If we try to expunge any reference to religion from public discourse, or the public square, then we end up with the religious majority feeling that an atheist minority is attacking their rights. Is it really necessary to demand the removal of manger scenes from downtown, so that they can be replaced with Santa and his reindeer? The secular celebration of Christmas is all about greed and and maxing out credit cards to buy junk that most people don't want in the first place. But the hyper-marketing campaigns of retailers have been assisted by a rigid adherence to secularism -- because if Jesus is removed....Santa is left all by himself standing in his place! So the kids get to sing those non-religious Christmas carols in public school about Santa bringing presents.....I don't exactly see it as a step up!
That's one viewpoint and I would agree some of the things our councils get up to are ridiculous. On the whole though we don't try and expunge any reference to religion from public discourse - besides we don't have people demanding public prayers and insisting we stop teaching about evolution or give creationism equal standing. Or rather there are but most people can't be bothered with them, sadly some councils feel they have to humour the superstitious but generally the kids, in my experience, are the ones that find it silly. In scotland the teaching of religious studies is actually compulsory and sectarianism is a constant problem so these things are often discussed quite openly it's also one of the reasons you will find most scots opinionated about religion.
You can't impose a secular attitude you kind of grow in to it as a society. The commercialisation of christmas is hardly due to secularism - the biggest culprit in that field is the united states - that most Christian of countries. The red Santa was created by the coca cola company as a sales gimmick. Besides why is that a problem? Christmas was originally a pagan festival that was hijacked by the Christian church anyway and you do not need to join in with the commercialisation. In a northern climate at that time of year the days are starting to get longer and the first signs that winter is more than half way through people's spirits start to rise, it's also the time when the last of the animals were slaughtered and people had a feast. It's visceral feeling of well being that make people want to celebrate and the christian church couldn't stop what they saw as pagan celebrations, so they pinched it - well that's my take on the issue. You don't have to join in the commercialisation if you don't want to - aren't you glad you're not forced to go join in the religious services either? That's because you live in a secular society, where freedom from religious persecution for non conformity is the norm.
posted by recovering conservative
If you are going to insist on defining faith as accepting a belief premise without clear evidence, then every belief position is faith-based, including atheism; even Dawkins claims to be agnostic about the question of whether it is possible to know that God does not exist.
Playing with semantics a wee bit there are you not? The main question is, I suppose, what is the meaning of life and how did we get there.
You look round for an explanation and one of those put forward is god, - some supreme being that made it all happen. Which begs the question of who made him but leaving that aside. When you can't explain what is happening in the world around you and bad things keep happening finding someone to blame or appeal to for help might seem a reasonable thing to believe. But there is no evidence god exists unless you choose to interpret what you see around you as proof of an unseen hand. But of he does he seems to be a fickle vindictive type of being. maybe there is more than one and appealing to the wrong one might be the problem. So it goes on. Leaving aside believing in god for the moment you can see the appeal of creating a religion to those who would be in control of others, believe as I tell you or you will go to hell ---- whatever. What's the first commandment?
You shall have no other gods before Me
Religion is a man made creation. Once they came up with the nicene creed and deemed anyone that didn't believe what they were told religion has been going downhill ever since.
There is no proof that god exists except if you choose to have faith, believe the explanation there is a god. It is not reasonable because there if it was you would be able to prove conclusively there was one and you wouldn't need faith. I don't have to prove there is no god because you can't prove something isn't there it's up to those who claim there is to make their case. But they can't so we have religion and superstition instead with the proof of god usually being based on the bible and the plaintive defence - if not god then what?
posted by recovering conservative
Yes it is! And if you were hoping that I had an easy answer to solve this problem, you'll be disappointed!
I don't have an answer either, as it happens I am atheist but get fed up saying agnostic to deflect the more rabid religionists who seem to think I am attacking their faith by not sharing it. You will not be surprised to know I don't have a solution either except you have to keep talking. Those who stop talking and reasoning and listening to others are one step away from violence
I don't like their manner, and if I was going to give an example of flawed arguments from each, first Hitch has contended in debates where he gets into holocausts, religious wars, and other religious violence, that there are no equivalent secular examples.
I don't either as it happens, hitchens is a bit of a sleaze ball but makes some good points. Dawkins also makes some good points but is a boring writer.
posted by recovering conservative
He claims that following enlightenment principles cannot lead to tyranny. And Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, are not secular humanists by that definition.
Well no they're not are they. They weren't religious but what they did wasn't inspired by them being atheists either. he does make a valid point
popsted by recovering conservative.
Maybe his opponent was searching for an atheist example and couldn't come up with one, because if he had mentioned the French Revolution, and the resulting Reign of Terror, this would have been a clear example of leaders claiming to following the principles of reason to create a bloodbath. Robespierre, the Jacobins, and other enlightened leaders of the Revolution were not atheists -- but they were deists -- which would have been the same thing in the 18th century, before materialists had evolution and modern cosmology to explain nature.
But what they did was not because they were deists to impose their will and believe system on others. It was revenge against the ancien regime and all it stood for and the church establishment that backed it up backed enthusiastically by the populace out for blood. - nor did they claim any moral high ground like doing god's work to justify the barbarity it was payback. You can find an awful lot more reigns of terror and atrocities committed in the name of religion by the religious on those who also believed in god, but the wrong version of it.
posted by recovering conservative.
The big problem with Dawkins's way of thinking -- and why I think it is at least theoretically possible that his version of enlightened thinking could lead to tyranny -- is that his notion of memes propagating all ideas, can be taken to the conclusion (which he does in some of his essays) that superstition and supernatural beliefs wouldn't exist without religion....religion is the bad collection of mind viruses, and science the good one in his essay: Viruses Of The Mind.
Dawkins too has some interesting ideas but is pretty boring not do i find some of his notions convincing. Neither hitchens or dawkins speak for anyone but themselves, it's not like the pope or the archbishop of canterbury who claim to speak for god and all their followers.
posted by Koan
gmc, I'm disturbed that you don't care what Dawkins says and haven't read any of his books since you were arguing vehemently against what is being said about him and his ilk in the "I Don't believe in Atheists" thread. I understand now why you had so much trouble understanding what was being said.
I was arguing against the ridiculous notion of the new atheists. I don't care what he says, why should I? He is just another writer on the subject not the spokesman for some mass movement as you seem to think. I don't need to agree with or even know what his theories are although know the gist of it, nor am I terribly interested in the detail of his theories. I might read them someday but I'm not a scientist and find history more interesting
He is NOT a guru or high priest whose words all must agree with. He's got his own theories you can read them if you want. The god delusion wasn't actually anything new it merely made things more accessible for people. I read the first chapter or so and decided it was really boring and not very original. Hitchens isn't a guru either. Although I can understand how someone who is religious might see them that way since they can't think for themselves they assume anyone not sharing their belief must be following something else.
You do not need to agree with either hitchens or dawkins to be an atheist or an agnostic, they haven't written an atheist bible or anything remotely like it they speak for themselves and publicise their books, all that's happened is they have touched a chord with a lot of people, especially in the states it seems, fed up with the lunatic fringes of the christian church setting the pace.
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
You can be an atheist without reading Dawkins, Hitchens or any other author. You can be an atheist and never actually read a book at all. Just as a person can be a theist without ever having read the bible or another religious work. A person can be a theist without even coming from a religious family or knowing what to call their belief because it is a personal formulation of their own ideas and intuitive feelings. But to deny that atheists have formed groups when evidence of those groups abounds all over the internet is just as silly as denying that Christians have churches.
I'm simply not interested in debating the point with someone who insists they know what I'm talking about yet hasn't read any of the literature on the matter. I'm also not interested in repeatedly having to explain that not all theists believe the bible is a true story.
I'm simply not interested in debating the point with someone who insists they know what I'm talking about yet hasn't read any of the literature on the matter. I'm also not interested in repeatedly having to explain that not all theists believe the bible is a true story.
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
koan;1344182 wrote: You can be an atheist without reading Dawkins, Hitchens or any other author. You can be an atheist and never actually read a book at all. Just as a person can be a theist without ever having read the bible or another religious work. A person can be a theist without even coming from a religious family or knowing what to call their belief because it is a personal formulation of their own ideas and intuitive feelings. But to deny that atheists have formed groups when evidence of those groups abounds all over the internet is just as silly as denying that Christians have churches.
I'm simply not interested in debating the point with someone who insists they know what I'm talking about yet hasn't read any of the literature on the matter. I'm also not interested in repeatedly having to explain that not all theists believe the bible is a true story.
I'm not denying that atheists have formed groups, that would be foolish of me. What I dispute is that atheism is just an alternative kind of religion, which is what you seem to suggest it is, with it's own set of beliefs that one must hold to be a member of said religion and dawkins and hitchans as the two most famous high priests. That is just nonsense.
We can just agree to disagree you know I don't feel any compulsion to "convert" you to my point of view. I disagree with lots of people about lots of things and remain friends.
I'm simply not interested in debating the point with someone who insists they know what I'm talking about yet hasn't read any of the literature on the matter. I'm also not interested in repeatedly having to explain that not all theists believe the bible is a true story.
I'm not denying that atheists have formed groups, that would be foolish of me. What I dispute is that atheism is just an alternative kind of religion, which is what you seem to suggest it is, with it's own set of beliefs that one must hold to be a member of said religion and dawkins and hitchans as the two most famous high priests. That is just nonsense.
We can just agree to disagree you know I don't feel any compulsion to "convert" you to my point of view. I disagree with lots of people about lots of things and remain friends.
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
I completely agree that we will continue to disagree, gmc. I don't wish to convert you to anything either. We are having these exchanges because you've challenged certain statements that I've made claiming that I am wrong. It is entirely possible that I may make incorrect statements but you aren't providing any evidence for the error. Sure, you're posting links to other websites, videos or literature that may or may not expand on the discussion but you've stated that you don't or won't read the literature under discussion so... why should I read your links? They become red herrings.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
gmc;1344170 wrote: posted by recovering conservative
Actually neither do I. It's a united kingdom, Scotland and England kept their separate church, education and legal systems.
Most people in the UK are secular in that they are nominally Christian but most don't attend church or practice any religion and really really don't want religious leaders trying to dictate how we live our lives. We have establishment churches but the majority of the population are irreligious and the pronouncements of the church and religious leaders have little real impact. Not being religious is not a bar to public office any more than being one is people generally don't care what your religion is unless you make it an issue - there are several muslim MP's for instance representing mainly "Christian" constituencies. At the last election all the christian candidates (yes we do have a christian party) lost their deposits.
That is what I mean by secular.
Thanks for the info! The standards for secularism vary from nation to nation.
posted by recovering conservative
That's one viewpoint and I would agree some of the things our councils get up to are ridiculous. On the whole though we don't try and expunge any reference to religion from public discourse - besides we don't have people demanding public prayers and insisting we stop teaching about evolution or give creationism equal standing. Or rather there are but most people can't be bothered with them, sadly some councils feel they have to humour the superstitious but generally the kids, in my experience, are the ones that find it silly. In scotland the teaching of religious studies is actually compulsory and sectarianism is a constant problem so these things are often discussed quite openly it's also one of the reasons you will find most scots opinionated about religion.
You can't impose a secular attitude you kind of grow in to it as a society. The commercialisation of christmas is hardly due to secularism - the biggest culprit in that field is the united states - that most Christian of countries. The red Santa was created by the coca cola company as a sales gimmick. Besides why is that a problem? Christmas was originally a pagan festival that was hijacked by the Christian church anyway and you do not need to join in with the commercialisation. In a northern climate at that time of year the days are starting to get longer and the first signs that winter is more than half way through people's spirits start to rise, it's also the time when the last of the animals were slaughtered and people had a feast. It's visceral feeling of well being that make people want to celebrate and the christian church couldn't stop what they saw as pagan celebrations, so they pinched it - well that's my take on the issue. You don't have to join in the commercialisation if you don't want to - aren't you glad you're not forced to go join in the religious services either? That's because you live in a secular society, where freedom from religious persecution for non conformity is the norm.
Yes, I know how Christmas grew out of the co-opting of pagan winter solstice festivals. When Christianity was moving throughout the Roman Empire, the leaders made a pragmatic decision to Christianize pagan rituals, rather than go Puritan, and try to banish everything that wasn't scriptural. Speaking of the Puritans -- their influence downgraded celebrations like Christmas and Easter; so the modern version of Christmas, was kicked off by Charles Dickens's Christmas Carol, and really took off with Coca Cola's Santa. Next thing we know we're spending a month buying presents....at least half of which are for people we don't even care for! My point is that when "Merry Christmas" is changed to "Happy Holidays," and Santa replaces Jesus, and the public schools have to remove all of the religious Christmas carols for the Santa and Rudolph ones.......my point isn't that secularism caused the commercialization of Christmas; it's that removing the religious baggage around Christmas, leaves nothing but commercialism behind.
posted by recovering conservative
Playing with semantics a wee bit there are you not? The main question is, I suppose, what is the meaning of life and how did we get there.
And to start on that journey to find the meaning of life, we have no choice other than to make some a priori assumptions. We assume the world is knowable, and we need a foundation to build our scientific knowledge upon, before we get into deciding on methods of developing knowledge, and determining what the implications are of what we've learned. It's not the same thing as religious faith; but there's no point in exaggerating the position that faith occupies in the thinking of the religious. It does not necessarily require the "suspension of reason!" It's just that the people who start with the premise that we live in a designed universe with a creator, are starting with an assumption that naturalists don't want to jump to without evidence.
There is no proof that god exists except if you choose to have faith, believe the explanation there is a god. It is not reasonable because there if it was you would be able to prove conclusively there was one and you wouldn't need faith. I don't have to prove there is no god because you can't prove something isn't there it's up to those who claim there is to make their case. But they can't so we have religion and superstition instead with the proof of god usually being based on the bible and the plaintive defence - if not god then what?
And supernatural beliefs seem to have come spontaneously from some natural flaws in the way our brains reason and make cognitive maps of the world. The big one being essentialism -- that people, other animals, and even things all have essential properties. The difference between the skeptic and the believer, is that the skeptic may use reason to rule out the earlier reflexive intuition towards superstition. Would you walk under a ladder? Or wear Fred West's Cardigan? People who follow their intuitions of essentialism will not; but rational skeptics will overrule that superstitious first response. I think the full picture shows that whether we are intuitive or skeptics, depends on who we are. Fear can make us more superstitious, and education (along with disappointment at getting fooled many times) can make us more skeptical. But, I think the predisposition to believe, or not believe in God, a created universe, and supernatural forces, is heavily dependent on how much we naturally rely on intuition, and how much on reason and rationalization.
popsted by recovering conservative.
But what they did was not because they were deists to impose their will and believe system on others. It was revenge against the ancien regime and all it stood for and the church establishment that backed it up backed enthusiastically by the populace out for blood. - nor did they claim any moral high ground like doing god's work to justify the barbarity it was payback. You can find an awful lot more reigns of terror and atrocities committed in the name of religion by the religious on those who also believed in god, but the wrong version of it.
Yes, but Hitchens claims that leaders following enlightenment principles couldn't create a tyranny....and he's wrong, because the high-minded leaders of the French Revolution decided that mass beheadings were necessary, to get rid of the revisionists who threatened the development of an age of reason.
posted by recovering conservative.
Dawkins too has some interesting ideas but is pretty boring not do i find some of his notions convincing. Neither hitchens or dawkins speak for anyone but themselves, it's not like the pope or the archbishop of canterbury who claim to speak for god and all their followers.
They don't exactly speak for themselves! They have their own followings. Atheists and humanists are not immune from falling for a cult of personality. It may not be as serious as religious cults, who believe their leaders have supernatural powers, or a hotline to God -- but I know when I criticized Dawkins on atheist forums, that it brought out dogmatic defenders who think he's infallible.
You do not need to agree with either hitchens or dawkins to be an atheist or an agnostic, they haven't written an atheist bible or anything remotely like it they speak for themselves and publicise their books, all that's happened is they have touched a chord with a lot of people, especially in the states it seems, fed up with the lunatic fringes of the christian church setting the pace.
There are nevertheless, two very different strategies that atheists and/or humanists can take to organize and decide what's important to them.....well, actually it may be three ways, because many atheists are not all that curious about building on their knowledge and understanding of the world. Anyway, if we do try to organize, we can either go the route of whether you like it or not -- New Atheism -- and form exclusively atheist groups that have the goals of promoting atheism and humanism, and confronting all forms of religion -- even liberal religion. Or, we can go with what the New Atheists call the "Accommodationalist" route, and accept that religion and supernatural beliefs will always be with society in one form or other, and make our alliance with the most liberal side of religion.
For what it's worth, our local Unitarian Church has informally polled its members (with a show of hands) a couple of times over the past year regarding their spiritual beliefs. Most seem to be pagans or spiritualists of some form or other; but approximately 25% consistently identify with being called atheist/agnostic. Which seems to be a higher number than those that show up for the monthly meetings of the secular humanists. So my main beef with Dawkins, and Harris, and especially with outrageous agitators like PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne, is that they get all the headlines, and are the face of atheism and humanism in the eyes of the general public, and not the quieter accommodationalists.
Actually neither do I. It's a united kingdom, Scotland and England kept their separate church, education and legal systems.
Most people in the UK are secular in that they are nominally Christian but most don't attend church or practice any religion and really really don't want religious leaders trying to dictate how we live our lives. We have establishment churches but the majority of the population are irreligious and the pronouncements of the church and religious leaders have little real impact. Not being religious is not a bar to public office any more than being one is people generally don't care what your religion is unless you make it an issue - there are several muslim MP's for instance representing mainly "Christian" constituencies. At the last election all the christian candidates (yes we do have a christian party) lost their deposits.
That is what I mean by secular.
Thanks for the info! The standards for secularism vary from nation to nation.
posted by recovering conservative
That's one viewpoint and I would agree some of the things our councils get up to are ridiculous. On the whole though we don't try and expunge any reference to religion from public discourse - besides we don't have people demanding public prayers and insisting we stop teaching about evolution or give creationism equal standing. Or rather there are but most people can't be bothered with them, sadly some councils feel they have to humour the superstitious but generally the kids, in my experience, are the ones that find it silly. In scotland the teaching of religious studies is actually compulsory and sectarianism is a constant problem so these things are often discussed quite openly it's also one of the reasons you will find most scots opinionated about religion.
You can't impose a secular attitude you kind of grow in to it as a society. The commercialisation of christmas is hardly due to secularism - the biggest culprit in that field is the united states - that most Christian of countries. The red Santa was created by the coca cola company as a sales gimmick. Besides why is that a problem? Christmas was originally a pagan festival that was hijacked by the Christian church anyway and you do not need to join in with the commercialisation. In a northern climate at that time of year the days are starting to get longer and the first signs that winter is more than half way through people's spirits start to rise, it's also the time when the last of the animals were slaughtered and people had a feast. It's visceral feeling of well being that make people want to celebrate and the christian church couldn't stop what they saw as pagan celebrations, so they pinched it - well that's my take on the issue. You don't have to join in the commercialisation if you don't want to - aren't you glad you're not forced to go join in the religious services either? That's because you live in a secular society, where freedom from religious persecution for non conformity is the norm.
Yes, I know how Christmas grew out of the co-opting of pagan winter solstice festivals. When Christianity was moving throughout the Roman Empire, the leaders made a pragmatic decision to Christianize pagan rituals, rather than go Puritan, and try to banish everything that wasn't scriptural. Speaking of the Puritans -- their influence downgraded celebrations like Christmas and Easter; so the modern version of Christmas, was kicked off by Charles Dickens's Christmas Carol, and really took off with Coca Cola's Santa. Next thing we know we're spending a month buying presents....at least half of which are for people we don't even care for! My point is that when "Merry Christmas" is changed to "Happy Holidays," and Santa replaces Jesus, and the public schools have to remove all of the religious Christmas carols for the Santa and Rudolph ones.......my point isn't that secularism caused the commercialization of Christmas; it's that removing the religious baggage around Christmas, leaves nothing but commercialism behind.
posted by recovering conservative
Playing with semantics a wee bit there are you not? The main question is, I suppose, what is the meaning of life and how did we get there.
And to start on that journey to find the meaning of life, we have no choice other than to make some a priori assumptions. We assume the world is knowable, and we need a foundation to build our scientific knowledge upon, before we get into deciding on methods of developing knowledge, and determining what the implications are of what we've learned. It's not the same thing as religious faith; but there's no point in exaggerating the position that faith occupies in the thinking of the religious. It does not necessarily require the "suspension of reason!" It's just that the people who start with the premise that we live in a designed universe with a creator, are starting with an assumption that naturalists don't want to jump to without evidence.
There is no proof that god exists except if you choose to have faith, believe the explanation there is a god. It is not reasonable because there if it was you would be able to prove conclusively there was one and you wouldn't need faith. I don't have to prove there is no god because you can't prove something isn't there it's up to those who claim there is to make their case. But they can't so we have religion and superstition instead with the proof of god usually being based on the bible and the plaintive defence - if not god then what?
And supernatural beliefs seem to have come spontaneously from some natural flaws in the way our brains reason and make cognitive maps of the world. The big one being essentialism -- that people, other animals, and even things all have essential properties. The difference between the skeptic and the believer, is that the skeptic may use reason to rule out the earlier reflexive intuition towards superstition. Would you walk under a ladder? Or wear Fred West's Cardigan? People who follow their intuitions of essentialism will not; but rational skeptics will overrule that superstitious first response. I think the full picture shows that whether we are intuitive or skeptics, depends on who we are. Fear can make us more superstitious, and education (along with disappointment at getting fooled many times) can make us more skeptical. But, I think the predisposition to believe, or not believe in God, a created universe, and supernatural forces, is heavily dependent on how much we naturally rely on intuition, and how much on reason and rationalization.
popsted by recovering conservative.
But what they did was not because they were deists to impose their will and believe system on others. It was revenge against the ancien regime and all it stood for and the church establishment that backed it up backed enthusiastically by the populace out for blood. - nor did they claim any moral high ground like doing god's work to justify the barbarity it was payback. You can find an awful lot more reigns of terror and atrocities committed in the name of religion by the religious on those who also believed in god, but the wrong version of it.
Yes, but Hitchens claims that leaders following enlightenment principles couldn't create a tyranny....and he's wrong, because the high-minded leaders of the French Revolution decided that mass beheadings were necessary, to get rid of the revisionists who threatened the development of an age of reason.
posted by recovering conservative.
Dawkins too has some interesting ideas but is pretty boring not do i find some of his notions convincing. Neither hitchens or dawkins speak for anyone but themselves, it's not like the pope or the archbishop of canterbury who claim to speak for god and all their followers.
They don't exactly speak for themselves! They have their own followings. Atheists and humanists are not immune from falling for a cult of personality. It may not be as serious as religious cults, who believe their leaders have supernatural powers, or a hotline to God -- but I know when I criticized Dawkins on atheist forums, that it brought out dogmatic defenders who think he's infallible.
You do not need to agree with either hitchens or dawkins to be an atheist or an agnostic, they haven't written an atheist bible or anything remotely like it they speak for themselves and publicise their books, all that's happened is they have touched a chord with a lot of people, especially in the states it seems, fed up with the lunatic fringes of the christian church setting the pace.
There are nevertheless, two very different strategies that atheists and/or humanists can take to organize and decide what's important to them.....well, actually it may be three ways, because many atheists are not all that curious about building on their knowledge and understanding of the world. Anyway, if we do try to organize, we can either go the route of whether you like it or not -- New Atheism -- and form exclusively atheist groups that have the goals of promoting atheism and humanism, and confronting all forms of religion -- even liberal religion. Or, we can go with what the New Atheists call the "Accommodationalist" route, and accept that religion and supernatural beliefs will always be with society in one form or other, and make our alliance with the most liberal side of religion.
For what it's worth, our local Unitarian Church has informally polled its members (with a show of hands) a couple of times over the past year regarding their spiritual beliefs. Most seem to be pagans or spiritualists of some form or other; but approximately 25% consistently identify with being called atheist/agnostic. Which seems to be a higher number than those that show up for the monthly meetings of the secular humanists. So my main beef with Dawkins, and Harris, and especially with outrageous agitators like PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne, is that they get all the headlines, and are the face of atheism and humanism in the eyes of the general public, and not the quieter accommodationalists.
Thank you Ted. An honest debate about belief in God
koan;1344191 wrote: I completely agree that we will continue to disagree, gmc. I don't wish to convert you to anything either. We are having these exchanges because you've challenged certain statements that I've made claiming that I am wrong. It is entirely possible that I may make incorrect statements but you aren't providing any evidence for the error. Sure, you're posting links to other websites, videos or literature that may or may not expand on the discussion but you've stated that you don't or won't read the literature under discussion so... why should I read your links? They become red herrings.
I'm really not interested in debating whether dawkins or hitchens are right or wrong it's not as though they represent a set of beliefs that you have to believe to be entitled to call yourself an atheist. Some of their stuff I quite like other bits I don't. They may be right they may be wrong but I can make up my own mind about things I feel no need or interest in arguing each point they make.
There is no atheist nicene creed to argue about. You seem to think there is with dawkins and hitchens as two of the main proponents but they speak for themselves and it's a spurious categorisation I wholeheartedly reject as intended for those who feel they need to put labels on people so they can assess them. You're a new atheist so that's what you are going to believe. In my case you are wasting your time for I am a heretic when it comes to new atheism. I hear the beat of my own drum as it were.
I had never even heard the term new atheists until you started posting using the term. Having looked at it I see where you are coming from but I'm not going to argue with you about it. These kind of arguments about god are as old as mankind there is nothing new about it at all, all that is different is that dawkns and hitchens seem to have touched a nerve, particularly in the states, with people who are concerned at a newly assertive religious minority. who seem hell bent ( no pun intended) on changing society away from the secular norm that has been achieved in the western world after a great deal or warfare. If they succeed freedom and liberty will go out the window until they are brought back to heel, put away in their box whatever metaphor you like to choose. I don't think they will succeed but you never know.
My view on god and religion has been arrived at after much study and contemplation. I post the links because I find them interesting and thought you might as well. Read them or not as you wish either way it's makes no difference to me. I have found your links interesting and will follow some of them to other areas as time and inclination allow.
As an aside the nicene creed is a good litmus test of how well read someone is. When you mention it to christian fundamentalists - as in those who believe in the literal truth of the bible - a surprising number haven't a clue what you are referring to.
I'm really not interested in debating whether dawkins or hitchens are right or wrong it's not as though they represent a set of beliefs that you have to believe to be entitled to call yourself an atheist. Some of their stuff I quite like other bits I don't. They may be right they may be wrong but I can make up my own mind about things I feel no need or interest in arguing each point they make.
There is no atheist nicene creed to argue about. You seem to think there is with dawkins and hitchens as two of the main proponents but they speak for themselves and it's a spurious categorisation I wholeheartedly reject as intended for those who feel they need to put labels on people so they can assess them. You're a new atheist so that's what you are going to believe. In my case you are wasting your time for I am a heretic when it comes to new atheism. I hear the beat of my own drum as it were.
I had never even heard the term new atheists until you started posting using the term. Having looked at it I see where you are coming from but I'm not going to argue with you about it. These kind of arguments about god are as old as mankind there is nothing new about it at all, all that is different is that dawkns and hitchens seem to have touched a nerve, particularly in the states, with people who are concerned at a newly assertive religious minority. who seem hell bent ( no pun intended) on changing society away from the secular norm that has been achieved in the western world after a great deal or warfare. If they succeed freedom and liberty will go out the window until they are brought back to heel, put away in their box whatever metaphor you like to choose. I don't think they will succeed but you never know.
My view on god and religion has been arrived at after much study and contemplation. I post the links because I find them interesting and thought you might as well. Read them or not as you wish either way it's makes no difference to me. I have found your links interesting and will follow some of them to other areas as time and inclination allow.
As an aside the nicene creed is a good litmus test of how well read someone is. When you mention it to christian fundamentalists - as in those who believe in the literal truth of the bible - a surprising number haven't a clue what you are referring to.