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

Richard Dawkins on TVO's "The Agenda" with Steve Paikin (May 10, 2007) -- part 7 of 7

Part 1 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=whHVI_s2HEA

Part 2 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=_W5EKYsg6PU

Part 3 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=0WosX3yXKh0

Part 4 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=5I0Z3jzd2YM

Part 5 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=HgRJnPmjVsc

Part 6 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=fG0Nxo5YvAw

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• Science
• Religion
• Faith
• Atheism
• God
• Delusion

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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 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.

[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]

@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"?

[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.

[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.