Love it. High time we started seeing some intelligent responses from religion.Until now, the only voices I've heard were Mary Midgely, Karen Armstrong and Courtney Raian, (mostly women) and John Lennox. It's high time the philosophy and the history of science were brought into the debate. It's not an ignorance of the nature of religion which is vexing me. It's an ignorance of science.
Float and contraversive. Strong tongue and total certainty - real fate man (pls it's sarcasm), but it was only his pov.
I guess he is no different than those believing the world ends this year.. Those are just too shortsighted and their joke ends son, where he think he's smart panties.. Maybe science revealed how small and insignifficant we all are and his ego turned him into jerk with public.
Also, regarding his final points about faith going "all the way": I can't say this is very fair as reason actively explores what the religious institution cautions against trying to understand; reason admits shortcomings when no observations can be made, while faith forms a subjective basis of that which cannot be truly known, calls it truth, then attacks others doing the same. Nevertheless, by and large an objective talk with some interesting points made; new atheism certainly has discrepancies
@Psychonaut1992 previous to the 1700s, no religion thought of faith as belief in facts. The meaning of it was more like 'I believe in rock'n'roll' or 'I believe in truth and justice'. That largely remains so. The only people who think of a religious text as a list of facts or scientific hypotheses are creationist christians and new atheists. the rest of us are looking for values and teleology. Choosing values is essential, whatever your lifestyle and science doesn't help there.
@leconfidant I can't say that's true - hard-line Muslims, for example, seem comfortable with the notion of a factual Qur'an. I can't remember a "new atheist" ever challenging scripture on the basis of it being factual, but rather the logical dead ends and highly, highly questionable moral format. Science doesn't deal in morality, no, but spirituality can still be secular and free of supernaturalism.
@Psychonaut1992 Oh the hard-liners, yes, totally. And they are pretty mad. But not the majority. The broad attack I see from new atheism, (I'm surprised to see anyone disputing it,) is that what they read isn't factually true. It really is logical positivism. They would rather science was the measure of all and they assess religion scientifically. We see secular spirituality in art and so on, given.
@leconfidant Of course they are not the majority, but religion is their tool and drive and that is where the problem lies. I think they (new atheists) challenge scripture as opposed to, say, Harry Potter, because many folks believe the Bible or what have you is indeed reliable or morally sound in its teachings. I wasn't aware of that about Hitchens or Dawkins - interesting.
@Psychonaut1992 I think we really have to get some numbers in of how many people actually believe texts literally. I'd say (1st world,) about 5% max. Scientific critiques of the bible are like scientific critiques of Snow White or jazz or romance. It just misses the whole point.
Moral crits are more relevant, and atheism is great for that, but there's too much 'extreme example = all religion' hype. It's deeply unconvincing to those of us who live normal lives and harm nobody.
@leconfidant I'd have to check it again, but at least in the States it's closer to 40% believing the Bible being entirely literal, and less than that figure believing in evolution. Literalness aside, the Bible still has much to account for. By no means should the whole be judged by its most obvious flaws (as in, extremists in religions). There's no harm in a peaceful believer, but the fact and matter is that it's still their religion that is used as a motive for harmful actions.
@Psychonaut1992 Jesus fuck, you're right. 40% literalism! And yes, that would explain their policy on the middle east and everything, because if anything is given to anger and jealousy like the Old Testament God, it would be American foreign policy. I mean if it helps the odds, in Britain it must be lower. That and only 5% of catholics go to church besides christmas, weddings and funerals. So reported and actual position may not be the same. But, wow, that is head-spinning.
@leconfidant It is, and pretty frightening stuff too. The UK's an odd one... churchgoers in general seem to be around the 5% as you said, with faith being about 40%. Then there are the ones who aren't religious as such but believe in some kind of god. That's based on the figures I've paid attention to for a few years. I think it would be safe to see we're rather faithless as a society (interesting that we're not doing a whole lot worse than the rest of the world).
Some very good points were made here but to say that "science keeps changing its mind" is a rather moot one, as by its very definition it is not held by dogmas but instead maintains credibility by progressing and evolving through the construction of empirical data.
@Psychonaut1992 I think there is a very general ignorance among many of the new atheists and evolution enthusiasts about the philosophy of science and the history of science in addition to their open disinterest in the history and philosophy of religion, excepting what they read from other atheists. The economic and political drivers behind what is called science are unknown to them. Too many think an understanding of hypothesis testing finishes the whole field of religion.
@leconfidant For evolutionary enthusiasts as you call them, laymen, yes, perhaps. I wouldn't go as far as saying there's a general ignorance with the major new atheists as they're typically very well educated, if rather staunch. I have to disagree you there as both Hitchens and Harris go into good detail about religious history. Finishing off the whole of religion? No, but overwriting its basic principles with ease? Absolutely, I'd say.
@Psychonaut1992 Hitchens has been criticised by other academics (atheists included) for his rather selective reading of the history of religion. I keep running up against those whose ONLY reading of religious history comes from the four horsemen taking potshots at it and it's just embarrassingly bad. Dawkins makes no mention of the abuses of evolutionary science to political ends by the Nazis or the American right. Harris I haven't read only watched. He IS a logical positivist.
Love it. High time we started seeing some intelligent responses from religion.Until now, the only voices I've heard were Mary Midgely, Karen Armstrong and Courtney Raian, (mostly women) and John Lennox. It's high time the philosophy and the history of science were brought into the debate. It's not an ignorance of the nature of religion which is vexing me. It's an ignorance of science.
leconfidant 6 days ago
Float and contraversive. Strong tongue and total certainty - real fate man (pls it's sarcasm), but it was only his pov.
I guess he is no different than those believing the world ends this year.. Those are just too shortsighted and their joke ends son, where he think he's smart panties.. Maybe science revealed how small and insignifficant we all are and his ego turned him into jerk with public.
gergister 1 month ago
Also, regarding his final points about faith going "all the way": I can't say this is very fair as reason actively explores what the religious institution cautions against trying to understand; reason admits shortcomings when no observations can be made, while faith forms a subjective basis of that which cannot be truly known, calls it truth, then attacks others doing the same. Nevertheless, by and large an objective talk with some interesting points made; new atheism certainly has discrepancies
Psychonaut1992 1 month ago
@Psychonaut1992 previous to the 1700s, no religion thought of faith as belief in facts. The meaning of it was more like 'I believe in rock'n'roll' or 'I believe in truth and justice'. That largely remains so. The only people who think of a religious text as a list of facts or scientific hypotheses are creationist christians and new atheists. the rest of us are looking for values and teleology. Choosing values is essential, whatever your lifestyle and science doesn't help there.
leconfidant 6 days ago
@leconfidant I can't say that's true - hard-line Muslims, for example, seem comfortable with the notion of a factual Qur'an. I can't remember a "new atheist" ever challenging scripture on the basis of it being factual, but rather the logical dead ends and highly, highly questionable moral format. Science doesn't deal in morality, no, but spirituality can still be secular and free of supernaturalism.
Psychonaut1992 5 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 Oh the hard-liners, yes, totally. And they are pretty mad. But not the majority. The broad attack I see from new atheism, (I'm surprised to see anyone disputing it,) is that what they read isn't factually true. It really is logical positivism. They would rather science was the measure of all and they assess religion scientifically. We see secular spirituality in art and so on, given.
leconfidant 5 days ago
@leconfidant Of course they are not the majority, but religion is their tool and drive and that is where the problem lies. I think they (new atheists) challenge scripture as opposed to, say, Harry Potter, because many folks believe the Bible or what have you is indeed reliable or morally sound in its teachings. I wasn't aware of that about Hitchens or Dawkins - interesting.
Psychonaut1992 5 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 I think we really have to get some numbers in of how many people actually believe texts literally. I'd say (1st world,) about 5% max. Scientific critiques of the bible are like scientific critiques of Snow White or jazz or romance. It just misses the whole point.
Moral crits are more relevant, and atheism is great for that, but there's too much 'extreme example = all religion' hype. It's deeply unconvincing to those of us who live normal lives and harm nobody.
leconfidant 5 days ago
@leconfidant I'd have to check it again, but at least in the States it's closer to 40% believing the Bible being entirely literal, and less than that figure believing in evolution. Literalness aside, the Bible still has much to account for. By no means should the whole be judged by its most obvious flaws (as in, extremists in religions). There's no harm in a peaceful believer, but the fact and matter is that it's still their religion that is used as a motive for harmful actions.
Psychonaut1992 3 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 Jesus fuck, you're right. 40% literalism! And yes, that would explain their policy on the middle east and everything, because if anything is given to anger and jealousy like the Old Testament God, it would be American foreign policy. I mean if it helps the odds, in Britain it must be lower. That and only 5% of catholics go to church besides christmas, weddings and funerals. So reported and actual position may not be the same. But, wow, that is head-spinning.
leconfidant 3 days ago
@leconfidant It is, and pretty frightening stuff too. The UK's an odd one... churchgoers in general seem to be around the 5% as you said, with faith being about 40%. Then there are the ones who aren't religious as such but believe in some kind of god. That's based on the figures I've paid attention to for a few years. I think it would be safe to see we're rather faithless as a society (interesting that we're not doing a whole lot worse than the rest of the world).
Psychonaut1992 3 days ago
Some very good points were made here but to say that "science keeps changing its mind" is a rather moot one, as by its very definition it is not held by dogmas but instead maintains credibility by progressing and evolving through the construction of empirical data.
Psychonaut1992 1 month ago
@Psychonaut1992 I think there is a very general ignorance among many of the new atheists and evolution enthusiasts about the philosophy of science and the history of science in addition to their open disinterest in the history and philosophy of religion, excepting what they read from other atheists. The economic and political drivers behind what is called science are unknown to them. Too many think an understanding of hypothesis testing finishes the whole field of religion.
leconfidant 6 days ago
@leconfidant For evolutionary enthusiasts as you call them, laymen, yes, perhaps. I wouldn't go as far as saying there's a general ignorance with the major new atheists as they're typically very well educated, if rather staunch. I have to disagree you there as both Hitchens and Harris go into good detail about religious history. Finishing off the whole of religion? No, but overwriting its basic principles with ease? Absolutely, I'd say.
Psychonaut1992 5 days ago
@Psychonaut1992 Hitchens has been criticised by other academics (atheists included) for his rather selective reading of the history of religion. I keep running up against those whose ONLY reading of religious history comes from the four horsemen taking potshots at it and it's just embarrassingly bad. Dawkins makes no mention of the abuses of evolutionary science to political ends by the Nazis or the American right. Harris I haven't read only watched. He IS a logical positivist.
leconfidant 5 days ago
Glad you enjoyed it empreme! We hope to start putting up a lot more videos like this!
liccmedia 2 months ago
Great Lecture! It was so nice to be able to see the speaker's power point slides for once! :)
empreme 2 months ago in playlist Alister McGrath
1:27:40
jakobdonskov 2 months ago