Would we better off without religion? - (Part 7of7)

[TheArcaneMaster]

Hmmmm...This is one of the few interviews with Dawkins where everyone else is at least polite and reasonable, for the most part. The psychologist disappointed me several times, but i can also appreciate that he's at least trying to be objective in his analysis of the functions of religion rather than arguing about theology.

[rosemaya48]

With religion, sticking to the writings and teachings of religion, we would NEVER have had any of the major scientific breakthroughs since the enlightenment. None. From Galileo to Darwin and Stephen Hawkings, all has come from a rejection of religious "truth". I was once a Christian and almost became a priest. I left once I realised there was no God and that it didn't have the power to properly explain anything. When someone asks you why your 3 yr old son died, then science is more honest.

[rosemaya48]

Bertrand Russell was right. Science does give us the space to be bigger, and it is in science where the true mystery and wonder exists. Not in religion. Religion limits us. Why? Because nothing new can come from religion. Their holy books are prescribed. Not one word can be added to them or taken away. Their traditions are repetitive. It is a closed circuit. Religion is like being on a small remote island. Once you've explored the island there is no mystery left. Science is limitless universe.

[RayKalmNiam]

@merkleboy10 The Chinese arent doing well because of Atheism. They're doin well because there's a billion of em.

[philster611]

" Why are we here"? Because a man and a woman decided to have sex and unfortunately in the idiot Muslims case, didnt use birth control....

[philster611]

What a pile o absolute tripe these idiots spew forth......

[islamtogo]

Shame on Richard ....... SOME1 Please ask him 2 give up his career !!!!

[BroJeetKune]

Jordan Peterson is an idiotic armchair intellectual. Also, the claim that religion enables self transcendance while science inhibits it... my question is: Where did she get that outfit? Looks like the prude needs to join the 21st century.

[hznfrst]

Jordan Peterson is quite the pompous ass, calling an intellectual of Dawkins' stature naive and unimaginative. Dawkins would clean his clock in any one-on-one debate!

[Tintunabulation]

You decided to ground your own convictions and values in a specific religious tradition rather than that of any other spiritual tradition. Just stating that this religion, out of all others, carry the truth regarding our origins, meaning and morality without being able to prove it to be objectively true, is much stronger evidence of your own arrogance and ignorance than that of Dawkins so piously accused.

[ProdigyBigBoss89]

And there we have it. "If we don't have it, why would we need to?" That's the basis of all religious thinkers, simply because they think their source of knowledge is the source of all that is good. Ergo, what they are saying is: If we don't have something to scare people into believing in, the world would collape on itself. So scarying people into what's right is ok? No!

That pole at the end, just a perfect way to end the debate.

[Reip187]

All I heard was hurr durr derp da derp derp derp

[Devoti]

"religion gives us a reason to be good", "why should you want to?(do good)", this is a horrible and weak way to think. how about not making others suffer? how about helping each other trying to make each other happy, for the good of everyone? how about just be fucking nice because your a good person? is none of these reasons good enough for him? if not, it only proves to me that religion is destructive to a human mind.

[BroJeetKune]

@Devoti Thank you! That's the point Dawkins was trying to make I think.

[chelseamate2]

logic prevails 84-16, ( i almost said thank god ) ha ha

[merkleboy10]

Just look at the Chinese. Look at how well they are doing. They are improving every day, and almost all of them are atheists. People CAN be good and thrive without religion... self-interest is more important than anything else.

[Keldrath]

@merkleboy10 i wouldnt cite china as a good example, chinas in a very bad place right now. because of their government

[therabbithole999]

@merkleboy10 Actually most of them are Taoist/Confucist. Whilte these religions dont have a "God" per se, they do have a firm set of rules and morality.

[TheSeekernasser]

 A great show !

[MasterRobinHood]

these 3 speakers together can't even counter what dawkins said, they have circular reasoning. Basically they say that religion answers what science can't.

Religion doesn't answer anything.

[hapobelle]

I am annoyed by the fact that most comments on videos with Dawkins on YouTube are from Americans who are about 15 years old.I have to go through" LMFAO,stupid ,moron,looser,owned,fail......­"till i find constructive opinion no matter religious or atheist.People believe in lots of "facts" such as nationality as if it exists on genetic level,I agree with Nietzsche and social-psychologists.

[MrHoolits]

"Faith is believing what you KNOW ain't so!" -- Mark Twain

[jonsweep]

science can only explain so much and religion "informs" us of the rest!!! LMFAO is this guy for real how can someone have the nerve to say that?

[din80s]

the why question is just a stupid question

[nujivaa]

"they watch for dawkins" *sniff* *sniff* i smell a bad looser.

[RayKalmNiam]

@EdwardVonFishington However you try to put it, nothing disprove how cowardly Dawkin's is.

[spiritech999]

The psycho-historical evolution of humanity tended more toward a pagan pantheism than the millenarian Judeo-Christian concepts of monotheism; yet, the religious practices of Western Civilization are very much a religious hybridization of psychogenic and trans-cultural belief systems.

Modern thought has shifted significantly with the advent of microscopes and telescopes, increasingly exploring the microcosm and macrocosm through ground glass lenses to scanning electron and tunneling microscopes.

[RayKalmNiam]

@EdwardVonFishington Still called "being a coward".

[srikargottipati]

84 to 16. Wow Dawkins wow

[davewatcher]

Dawkins would blow his hat off.

[davewatcher]

The format of this show is lousy. Dawkins has his say but then 3 theists attempt to dissect his view without Dawkins being there to come back at them.

[RayKalmNiam]

@davewatcher Dawkin himself didn't want to show up. He's too afraid to debate with Muslims like Shabir Ally.

[therabbithole999]

@RayKalmNiam You obviously missed the first 5 clips of this episode.

[mandolinroad]

The imam's full of shit, of course it's possible to think about purpose and meaning of life without religion and Dawkins has addresed this on numerous accounts. It's called philosophy and there is no need to believe in God or belong to a religion to be a philosopher.

[Eishwtf]

Enough of this freedom of religion BULLSHIT, Where the crusades, inquisitions and 911 attacks not enough FFS? "Bashes head on keyboard"

[iPodscreateZombies]

it seems like the guy says that religion picks up from where science leaves off, and i think thats much more profound then he notices, history shows this quite well, when a mountain shook a man told his child that hephaestos was making the armor of the gods, then we studied the mountains, we looked at the stars and thought they were gods, them we learned astronomy, it seems like religion just fills in the blanks, until we ACTUALLY know what its about

[mandolinroad]

@iPodscreateZombies He's talking shit. Science was being actively sabotaged by religious people for centuries. Just take Martin Luther and his persecution of Kepler. Of course one can ponder the meaning of life, it's called philosophy.

[therabbithole999]

@iPodscreateZombies and has historically oppressed "actually knowing" for millenia.

[datronz]

i did watch for dawkins lol, but i did listen to their side as well

[blindside55]

Second time I've seen this host, he does a good job of playing devil's advocate and presenting the other side, instead of just letting superfluous adages go by unchecked. It is likely that the polls were littered with Dawkins supporters.

[mandolinroad]

@blindside55 The host is a religious fucking pundit and it's obvious throughout the whole show. Only reason he's not being a dick about it is because he's canadian and not american. He's like O'Reilly only with a certain amount of decency and good manners.

[Rhodri0110]

Interesting quote from the 1800s....

[darkishphoenix]

Ok, was ready to criticize at the first segment with the religious panel, but I thought I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm a believer, and I think one of the things that's wrong is the lack of the wider religious community for genuine self-reflection. They rely on the intellectual argument without considering that most religious people aren't intellectual. Dawkins uses hyperbole of extreme literalism in Christianity, but more of the masses go to the literal than intellectual

[FinalHeresy]

man the look on there faces as that poll came up is priceless. good going dawkins

[Gwisss]

The Imam is being very dishonest in misrepresenting Richard Dawkins. Then again, what can one expect from an immoral human being seeking to proselytize for his faith on television.

It is amazing how these religious claim the moral high ground, yet seem to be the most dishonest. Willing to warp and fabricate false positions of an opponent so as to make it seem as if they have refuted or won an argument.

Absolutely repulsive, I think.

[jordant1717]

3 religious people couldn't convince the t.v. audience that Dawkins was wrong, what fucking retarded ass people

[Schragmeister]

Calm down, friend. I think they were right in that the audience was mainly supporters of Dawkins. Unfortunately, in the US, the actual numbers are pretty much flipped in terms of the number of faithful.

...unfortunately. I did like this interview with Dawkins. The host did amazingly well for someone with a polar opposite view. 5/5

[Real19821]

All the answers from the board are very common place and superfucial. "The most common answer being religion helps to sort out what science does not answer for", anyone ignorant enough will repeat that time and time again. I was not impressed with the panel or the answers they gave. Love is a natural biological gene within in all humans.

[Percavius]

"If those invisible things disappear, all hell will break loose!" hahaha oh man that's gold

[DoctorNumLuck]

aww man, I hope Dawkins doesn't see this and think Canadians are stupid..

[DoctorNumLuck]

what the fuck is a good darwinian, seriously, does it mean I believe darwin existed, or does it mean i accept evolution, stupid dumbass terms being thrown around by braindead, brainwashed stumps

[1eyedcatfish]

Its pretty easy to criticize someone without them being there to defend themselves. What a poorly conceived segment.

[theacsmcs]

Now you have listened to the religous defenders - your faith must be even more shaken. Dawkins makes sense and I have trouble even understanding what these guys are waffleing about.

[yeovil50]

What were they scared to debate and verbally assasinate a book without the author being there to defend it?. Dawkins would have taken them all apart on every poin tthey raised. That clinical psychologist -what an idiot!!. As i said, Dawkins would have destroyed all of them , which is why they chose not to let him debate with them..

[thepigofhappiness]

whahahahaha they watch for Dawkins, they always have a way of explaining away their failures... I think it's atrocious that they brought the religious types in to gang up on Dawkins without him being present to defend his own position

[kotoroshinoto]

wow, having a vote on something that consensus is highly likely to decide incorrectly.... genius

[psychokitten420]

i think it's absurd that they are having this 'debate' about dawkins' book...without dawkins' there to defend his POV

[IMAKEITRAIN2000]

confusionism was founded at 500bc or so? thats morality there. with out a god.

[acceptanceisbliss]

the question "why are we here" is asked by people who find the life they lead today doesnt live up to their standards and they cant fulfill their potential to be the person they're capable of being, cuz they're tools of their fear. What they can't understand they fear, what they cant sympathize with they fear, what they cant know they fear. Hence they create imaginary situations when "one day" at the end of their suffering, they'll have the answers to their questions, and they'll know "why".

[werterr3]

Oww that's low "the ground of morals is not there, an atheist can be good, but why would he want to ? cause there's no moral grounding"

not that the psychiatrist (peterson) is not much better. it's just silly and stupid to think that if religion did not exist everything would be in chaos just because there's no religion.

talking about little imagination, you can think of many different things that could take up the place of the current religion guilt trip to make sure people are accountable.

[gigi4123]

Of course the world would be better without religion! Love, tolerance, all the moral values, etc were not invented by religion, but are concepts independent of it. The only things that religion brings to the table are child stories, meaningless rituals, superstitions and fixed ideas.

[NegativeNick]

the absolute worst thing religion has ever done is try to take over love and fooling people into thinking they can't love without religion. they sell you on the short con and at the same time set you up for the long con

[Kyoowon]

that's exactly what I have in mind, they subordinated LOVE to Belief, when love wants to be prevail without any condition whatsoever.

[peterogr]

Wow look at that, a christian a spiritualist (sort of) and a muslim all getting along, probably all good people. Now all they have to do is get rid of the god thing and we can all get along.

[spartonne]

84 vs 16. = FAIL

[megking]

@spartonne

more like victory.

[spartonne]

@megking True that

[BroJeetKune]

@spartonne ...with an exponent of > epic proportions

[steelyman40]

@spartonne So popularity--or the number of people who bother to email a talk show--determine who has the best argument, in your mind? Good luck to you, but understand that history's riddled with examples of the crowd getting it perfectly wrong. I think this debate is a small example of that phenomenon.

[spartonne]

@steelyman40 No - just a fail for them. The panel was very much pro religion and they were probly hoping to sway the audience opinion in their favour - they failed.

[steelyman40]

@spartonne Right. So because they failed to convince the audience...or more particularly, there were a larger number of respondents who probably had a bias against religion before watching this and they collectively responded "fail", that matters to you? You're convinced by the popularity of an argument, rather than its merits?

[spartonne]

@steelyman40 No - the popularity of an argument of does not convince me of its validity - otherwise I'd be religious. My coment was based on the perception that a panel of guests with an obvious bias towards religion then asked for a vote on the matter - perhaps hoping to have gained some support (why go on TV to talk about it if not) only to result in a massive consensus in the other direction, as - a fail. I found it funny, and so did a few others it seems. Understand?

[phixl]

Shame on him! 'Dawkins is not a deep thinker'....what a scoundrel

[odykay]

@phixl Well, at the same time there is such a thing as thinking too deeply about things.

[steelyman40]

@phixl Do you know Peterson? Have you ever talked to him? Ever had dinner with him? He's actually ridiculously intellectually honest. He said "Dawkins is a very good biologist...a good Darwinian". I agree. Selfish Gene was an excellent book. Problem is that when Dawkins goes on about religion, he sounds like an idiot. THere are some smart atheists out there (Dennett for ex), but Dawkins is awful. He doesn't know enough about what he's critiquing.

[steelyman40]

@phixl I've got to come back to this. Help me understand how Dawkins is a deep thinker in the domain of art, religion, the subconscious--any of the romantic arenas. He actually strikes me as a bit crazy (given that he abandoned that post at Oxford) and a LOT dogmatic. So...I leave it to you. Show me where in his citation free piece of hackery about religion does he come off as a "deep thinker"?

[spartonne]

@steelyman40 Have you read any of his books? - hes a VERY deep thinker in all domains. Despite what you may think - scientists and rationalists aren't face value automaton computers. It takes real insight and, abstract thought and an ability to see past the here and now, to become as good a scientist as Dawkins. He's thought about this alot - and some of his observations and perspectives on existence and the nature of reality are extremely deep on more than just a physical level.

[steelyman40]

@spartonne Great. Can you give me an example of 'deep thought' about religion etc. out of Dawkins? Human morality is only as old as the age of enlightenment? Wrong. I like what Peterson said (in another debate) about the atheist bus campaign: "no god so don't worry and enjoy your life" expresses a lack of moral reasoning and depth, but many atheists/rationalists seem to swallow that nonsense wholesale. Anyway, good talking to you, but if you could offer an example of Dawkins' wisdom.

[spartonne]

@steelyman40 - What? Do you want them to put a whole paragraph on the side of a bus - it was an advert - simple and provocative - value for money. How is it nonsense? And don't start with morals - religion has no monoploy on them - much less a mastery of them. He never said human morality was as only as old as the age of enlightenment - he reasons through biology and anthropology that we had it all along, as a species. If the morals are good or bad is another question re Sam Harris.

[steelyman40]

@spartonne I don't want to get into a debate 480 characters at a time. I will say, though, that if you follow the rationalist tradition to its logical conclusions, you'll have very litte that has any explanatory power for the way the world actually functions. This isn't about religion or not, it's about eschewing a shallow belief set that might call music "air pressure variations through time" and have nothing at all to say about the human condition. Anyway good talking. Good luck to you.

[RPFS2008]

Pretty poor (religious) panel.

Actually, DAMN poor (religious) panel.

[sketchees]

Mr. Peterson makes me cringe whenever he speaks. WOW!

He quotes Mr. Dawkins as saying rationale is supported by little invisible things that he doesn't understand... WELL.. YOU don't either Mr. Peterson! At least science continues to explore. I see your view point as: Well hell with it.. let's believe in fairytales and insinuate that faries exist! Where's the LOGIC in that?? My god.

I'm sure glad i don't have him as a teacher at UofT.

[sketchees]

Religion does not pick up from where science leaves off. I can't understand how this panel can be taken seriously. Even in their thoughts and statements they sound apprehensive in answering.

When confronted with a Dawkins statement, which Steve asks, you can tell that they actually stop to think.

Rational thinking and studying of theism should always trump the assumption of "knowing" for sure there is a god.

I'd rather admit i don't know, than say that i think i know.

[Entertainmentwf]

did that guy just said science doesn't try to explain why things work? lol, I'm guessing he isn't that much of science person lol. Last time I checked I've been doing theoretical computer science and I'm learning why "ab" + "ba" = "abba" which is very very complex in binary relationship. Science answers why, and how, just science is a process it can't answer everything... yet :).

[MMA4Christ]

Throughout history, Christian truth remains, which comes straight from absolute truth, God.

Other people that came morality from other sources are just using God's character without giving God credit.

[johuth]

Also you want to be good because you want to be but if you choose not to it doesn't help our society. So that is why people choose to be could becuase it would bring destruction. I answered the religious guy's question so that so that is why we are good and we choose to be good over being bad. I hate it when religious people bring up that argument!

[johuth]

Well he don't really need a reason to why does there even have to be?

[Grak70]

1:37 "Religion picks up where reason and science leaves off." I couldn't agree more. Whose case is this guy arguing?

[JOHNOOH]

"science only goes so far, religion...uh...uhh... informs us of the rest" PISS OFF, unwavering faith is a beautiful trait wasted on religion. better used on a sports team or arguing tea is better than coffee. religion informs us of nothing at all. religion only funnels our deepest fears into a pipeline of control through brown trousers and indoctrination. aethisim, the modern sign of advanced intelligence

[msanchez007]

Why is that the "Science can't answer the question of; WHY we're here?" excuse is always used. We're here in order to collaborate with one another in order for the human species to try continue on forever.

[pilgrimpater]

So god created us to be good, eh? Not doing too good a job is he/she/it/they. Not so almighty after all.

[pilgrimpater]

"Why are we here?" asks the Muslim chap. Bad question. Why assume there has to be a reason? We can describe HOW we are here which is by evolution. There can be a reason but not necessarily a purpose. Besides if there is a purpose then why not bypass life and go straight to eternity? As usual the whole religion thing it doesn't stack up.

[thumbsdownman]

I think the best comment of the show came right at the end.

The reason the vote was 84% against religion, is because people were "watching for Dawkins".

How big of an audience is Dawkins supposedly pulling in? Is it like...2 or 3 times the size of the normal audience?

[gbcharlie]

4 Morons on a biased fake debate TV show Vs. 1 British Scientist not given the chance to respond.....and he still beats them all without having to be there.

Very funny indeed! Bring on the entire Creationist population of North America, and it would still only require Dawkins on his own to win the debate.

[jadegreenall]

Just because science can't answer a question right now doesn't mean it never will!! It is working progress.

Just because science doesn't have an anwser right now...don't bring an invisable magic entity into the equation to explain it. Arrrggg!!! How stupid can people be??????????

I can't listen to any more of this shit. It's not good for my blood pressure.

[garouHH]

Actually there are questions that can never be answered by science, it just requires the object of the question and its influences on reality not being perceivable. By extension that also means that every hypothesis about such matters is pure speculation. And that's what religion concerns itself with.

[cant1be1original]

So, basically what you are saying is that religion concerns itself with matters of pure speculation?. And your betting on a speculation with unfounded explainations and circular logic? I'll hedge my bets on a educated guess. As far educated as I can get.

[garouHH]

Huh? What? What "speculation with unfounded explainations and circular logic" are you talking about?

[cant1be1original]

You basically said religion is about "pure speculation on unkownable things" (paraphrasing)

So if religion is that which cant be answered it's not an answer. Or the answers(speculations of the unkown) it gives are at the same level as that of anyone else for it's "speculation". And not divine truth. (not speculation) ..

Why believe in the bible if it's not Gods word. Believe in me!

I can at least explain why you shouldnt stone gay people!

[garouHH]

> "pure speculation on unkownable things" (paraphrasing)

Yes.

> Or the answers [...] it gives are at the same level as that of anyone else

Yes.

> Why believe in the bible if it's not Gods word.

I never said that one should.

Now what is that "speculation with unfounded explainations and circular logic" that I supposedly believe in?

[cant1be1original]

oh, Sorry I misunderstood you. ^_^ I thought you were in support of saying it's knowable of who/why/what god wants. ^_^ And at the same time saying you cant know only speculate. THought you were saying the bible is what god wants. lol..

[jadegreenall]

I simply cannot believe what I'm hearing. How dare he say Dawkins is not a deep thinker!!!

Dawkins is one of the greatest thinkers alive today!!!

It is'nt fair to have 3 people criticise Dawkins after her spoke & not let him to respond to any of this bullshit.

Every time I listen to a religious person defending religion I lose more and more faith in humanity. I never realised people could be so ignorant and thick. When shown the truth they look away. It's disgusting.

[Gwaithmir]

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

--Steven Weinburg

[PersonalJesus348]

this last segment is obviously so religious viewers feel all warm fuzzies.

[sfehrenbach]

It's a bit of a slanted panel since no one there would represent the side of the Atheists in the panel discussion. Sort of leads to a forgone conclusion on what their opinion will be to the primary statement "Would we better off without religion?".

[ribosoma]

dawkins had his chance and no one interrupted him, now lets hear the other side...

[clray123]

This is actually quite entertaining. These funny people keep talking their gibberish while at the same time the viewers are overwhelmingly voting we'd be better off without religion. It's like showing them a finger in a polite way.

[CaMaverick]

The Imam is being very dishonest, yes Dawkins did label himself a 6/7 on the Athestic scale but ONLY because he admit you can not disprove a negative, in other words, you can't disprove things that don't exist.

No one can be on a 7/7 for that scale unless they're intellectually ignorant of absolutism.