richard dawkins (6 Viewers)

[Denny Oubidoux]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that religion didn't come up with helpful suggestions...
But you're right, I feel that something enormously important has been lost in the modern mindset.

i dont think its helpful that a large chunk of the worlds population believes in a spiteful vengeful god who demands prayer and unquestioning devotion and who frowns upon wanking - in the search for a meaning behind our being i dont think that was a helpful suggestion from the church (i also dont accept that there would be no morality of any kind without religion, they just take credit for it).

i cant argue in favour of any particular position within the context of a debate about religion other than saying i dont believe in "God" and i dont have any better ideas. that doesnt mean i dont engage with the whole business though, i do! i just consistantly fail to come up any thing specific to argue in favour of. i like hedgerows, and ale and pasties and that kinda thing. misty summer mornings in the countryside. usually i would just point straight to this iris dement video - she says it better

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[nooleen]

No, it's really boring... why don't you liven it up a bit?

i'll send in the clown when he's finished stirring up the social welfare revolution over in politics.

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

askldjaslkj

 

[Froog]

diarmuid, is this you?

http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=f5d922d97e345aa1

 

[flashback]

to be fair, your argument appears to be that God doesn't make scientific sense.

Which is completely missing the point of faith.

I.... eh. Fucking hell.
Right, so basically, fair point. I think. I am a research scientist, or was for years, till I left that position a couple of months back, so I have a rationalistic skew / way of looking at things.

Also, I don't totally follow a lot of what's being said here by Diarmuid. It does hurt my head a bit though. The rest of you seem to be gamely moving things forward though.


So correct me if I am wrong:
I made the point that so far God has explained nothing to us. 100% of the answers we have to questions posed have not involved a deity.

But the problem with this argument is that it is a scientific one? That there is some kind of tautology going on here? Science does not need God, so by definition this sort of logic is going to give you a negative answer? That God simply cannot give us answers to those kind of questions.


Em, ok. I suppose I can see this.

But, if God cannot give us those answers, why do people continuously use him to give us those answers? Humans have ad nauseum attributed basically everything to God at one point or other.
Why do people continue to give God as answers to those sorts of questions?

Am I right saying that the argument is that God cannot explain anything to us, cannot give us any answers, yet can exist.

Disclaimer, I am pretty much ignorant to most of Philosophy, I am not familiar with the language, or most of the arguments.

 

[snakybus]

Didn't CS Lewis come up with the term qualia - meaning the emotional or even spiritual meaning for something? I think that's sort of what Diarmuid is driving at. Like say a red triangle, it has its physical , measurable dimensions and measurements - its angles, length of its sides, the parts of the spectrum of light that bounces off it and the parts that it absorbs. Even some cultural references are somewhat measurable - like it might signify a physical danger of some kind (or movies with sex in them on Channel 4 in the '80s), but the deeper meaning you might ascribe to it is something different--how it makes you feel, how it makes the collective of humanity feel. Someone like Daniel Dennet vehemently denies the existence of qualia and says this is all a crock of shit. For this reason, I'm not sure how much value the debate has. It's all a bit wanky. I mean you could say that you either feel this stuff or you don't. You could say that it doesn't matter when you're just trying to get by in life. On the other hand, I guess there are some people out there who do actually seek further answers and enjoy exploring possible mysteries, as opposed to those who just want to watch Coronation Street, or those who think that figuring out a few science puzzles is where it's at, and then leave it at that. Or those who just want to win arguments. Or those, like Christopher Hitchens, who want to win arguments and belittle people.

One thing I have noticed recently is that more and more people I know are saying "I am an atheist", whereas before they might have said "ah well, to each his own--I mean I don't really believe in anything". In general I have had no problem with these people, they tend to be easy-going sorts, rationalists with at least a passing an interest in "the truth". But recently I think Dawkins and the like have created a sort of crude brotherhood of atheists around the world (they even have a name don't they - "brights"? I think this is largely George Bush's doing for giving Dawkins etc a quasi-political mandate.) And these guys are becoming almost evangelical in their invective. But harmless, I suppose...so far.

By the way, Diarmuid makes complete sense - even if you don't agree with him. It seems pretty damn straightforward to me.

 

[Diumraid]

diarmuid, is this you?

http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=f5d922d97e345aa1

Very impressive - some of the dialogue really works but if you're going to laugh at it just write 'ha' once... it gives the same response to each ha, doesn't look too good.

 

[Diumraid]

Didn't CS Lewis come up with the term qualia - meaning the emotional or even spiritual meaning for something? ... Someone like Daniel Dennet vehemently denies the existence of qualia and says this is all a crock of shit.

Thanks Snakyboss,
That's a good example of the suppression of affective (emotional) language. These guys hate the open-endedness of symbols metaphors etc; this is the vanguard of the new atheism. Not saying that everyone should be tarred with the same brush, mind. I'd share a drink with David Hume and buy another pint to pour over Dawkins' head any day of the week.

 

[flashback]

Straightforward?

Do you all have degrees in philosophy like? I've even read some of Dennet's stuff. Most of that seemed straightforward, at the time. Although, it was a while ago... am I thick now?

It might be what years of science and computers does to your brain. Not thick really, just not able to comprehend this stuff like I used to.

Wow.
This thread is like an abusive spouse I sort of hate but keep returning to.

le sigh.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Didn't CS Lewis come up with the term qualia - meaning the emotional or even spiritual meaning for something? I think that's sort of what Diarmuid is driving at. Like say a red triangle, it has its physical , measurable dimensions and measurements - its angles, length of its sides, the parts of the spectrum of light that bounces off it and the parts that it absorbs. Even some cultural references are somewhat measurable - like it might signify a physical danger of some kind (or movies with sex in them on Channel 4 in the '80s), but the deeper meaning you might ascribe to it is something different--how it makes

reminds me of Gestalt , something which is more than the sum of its parts. Like a really good song.

 

[Diumraid]

Straightforward?

Do you all have degrees in philosophy like? I've even read some of Dennet's stuff. Most of that seemed straightforward, at the time. Although, it was a while ago... am I thick now?

It might be what years of science and computers does to your brain. Not thick really, just not able to comprehend this stuff like I used to.

Wow.
This thread is like an abusive spouse I sort of hate but keep returning to.

le sigh.

People are being programmed (deliberate choice of word) out of imagistic, mythical magical thinking. Previously this would have existed in the form of a shared understanding (invariably religious) but in the light of things now it becomes ever more necessary to try to describe these mysterious somethings.

It's taken me a ferocious length of time to be able to find language for what I want to say at all so apologies for all arcana.

reminds me of Gestalt , something which is more than the sum of its parts. Like a really good song.

I always think about that in terms of alchemy, you put in 'lead' and you get 'gold'.

 

[Diumraid]

i dont think its helpful that a large chunk of the worlds population believes in a spiteful vengeful god who demands prayer and unquestioning devotion and who frowns upon wanking - in the search for a meaning behind our being i dont think that was a helpful suggestion from the church (i also dont accept that there would be no morality of any kind without religion, they just take credit for it).

Bad Dad God doesn't just frown on wanking - He kills you on the spot for it....

 

[egg_]

People are being programmed (deliberate choice of word) out of imagistic, mythical magical thinking.

a) By who?

b) Why?

 

[egg_]

Sorry D, perhaps I'm taking you too literally, am I?

 

[egg_]

When Mrs. egg_ was doing here Ph.D. in England, some of her friends were artsy types as opposed to the science-y people we both grew up with, and their way of expressing themselves was so different to ours that it led to some discussions getting very heated basically cos we couldn't understand each other. The only way I can describe it is they tried to paint with their words, while we tried to draw detailed little diagrams

Anyway, here's my latest little word diagram, through which I hope to sum up the two camps:

1. The theists
Hold as self-evident that love, truth and beauty cannot be just Physics. Experience love, truth and beauty in their own lives, therefore they reason that there must be something other than Physics

2. The atheists
Hold as self-evident that there is nothing but Physics. Experience love truth and beauty in their own lives, therefore they reason that love, truth and beauty are Physics.

Diarmuid's problem with the atheists is that, according to his reasoning, if the atheists are right then love, truth and beauty do not exist (hence the post-religious-thinking===autism thing).

Am I getting somewhere? Is that the best argument against atheism that you're thinking of?

 

[Diumraid]

a) By who?

b) Why?

A) The 'other'
B) To isolate the individual for consumerist purposes. I used to think that it was hyperbolic language when people said that popular media was destroying the will and imaginations of the young.

1. The theists
Hold as self-evident that love, truth and beauty cannot be just Physics. Experience love, truth and beauty in their own lives, therefore they reason that there must be something other than Physics

2. The atheists
Hold as self-evident that there is nothing but Physics. Experience love truth and beauty in their own lives, therefore they reason that love, truth and beauty are Physics.

Diarmuid's problem with the atheists is that, according to his reasoning, if the atheists are right then love, truth and beauty do not exist (hence the post-religious-thinking===autism thing).

Am I getting somewhere? Is that the best argument against atheism that you're thinking of?

It's not atheism in itself that's the enemy and it's most definitely not organised religion of yore that I'm setting up as the heroic opposition. I believe that a certain kind of atheistic dogma is the new controlling mechanism in place of the old religious dogma. As religious dogma served to keep the poor in line, so materialist philosophy justifies consumerism. I contend that there are questions to be asked about worth of the one and the worthlessness of the other. There's a lot of assumption and knee-jerk reaction going on.

The question of love etc has more to do with the ideas of Dawkins, Dennett et al.; I think their form of thinking is moving towards autism, no community, no indi. I associate religion with everything they're against, rightly or not.

 

[Bladez]

This looks like that creationist museum thread again

Just my 2c. How can anyone be sure that they are right and the other side is wrong? The models we have of how things are are just that - models. We'll never be able to ascribe any truth to them.

 

[cunt]

I never understand the idea that love, meaning etc. are somehow crowded out by rationality and inseparable from mystery (although I sense if is the cultural residue of religion) i.e. that the explanation of something somehow debases its value. Why is mystery a necessary component of meaning and the rejection of religious, non-rational thinking equivalent to the rejection of experience, emotion etc. I'm not with you at all on how materialism (in a philosophical sense) justifies consumerism. I also don't think that people are being "programmed" by such thinking. The central message coming from most scientists is skepticism rather than fundamentalism.

 

[Diumraid]

I never understand the idea that love, meaning etc. are somehow crowded out by rationality and inseparable from mystery (although I sense if is the cultural residue of religion) i.e. that the explanation of something somehow debases its value. Why is mystery a necessary component of meaning and the rejection of religious, non-rational thinking equivalent to the rejection of experience, emotion etc. I'm not with you at all on how materialism (in a philosophical sense) justifies consumerism. I also don't think that people are being "programmed" by such thinking. The central message coming from most scientists is skepticism rather than fundamentalism.

Love, meaning, emotions etc are not subject to direct description, we are forced to use metaphors, symbols images etc which are polar opposites to logical propositions. There is no exact science to putting across a feeling or a concept..

I'm making a small leap from philosophical materialism to practical materialism: if this is all there is then we should get as much of it as we can regardless of consequences. If we don't consider the idea of absolute right and wrong then who can tell anyone anything? That's they way 'they' like it...

It's not scientists who drive this, it's their paymasters.

Again this doesn't so much concern individuals as 'people at large'. Not individual skeptics, atheists or responsible thinkers of any sort but lazy perpetual teenagers rotting in front of their PS3s or Desperate Housewives or whatever.

 

[Bladez]

Love, meaning, emotions etc are not subject to direct description

Why not? Maybe we will soon be able to describe them in terms of neuro-physiological processes.

In the future there is no reason why we couldn't have a precise vocabulary to express these things unambiguously.