Dawkins / The Root of All Evil (merged) (2 Viewers)

[snakybus]

Re: the root of all evil

It was weak. The arguments were unsolid, as I expected. A zoologist trying to make sociological or even philosophical point is a dangerous thing. And the "religion is virus" thing is just stupid as an argument and the fact that a scientist came up with it makes it all the more repugnant. I was surprised that Dawkins went down the facile, crowd-pleasing road of talking to a middle-American bible-toting conservative republican born-again and a crazed militant muslim, when he could have talked to intellectuals or moderates who are equally as faithful. It's like saying: "Music is bullshit, and to prove this, here's Garth Brooks!". But when he wanted to talk to his own kind, the free-thinkers group, he had no problem finding intellectuals. Worrying though, that people who teach evolution get threatening letters and the like in the US. Dawkins is a really cool guy and terribly charismatic. I will watch all of this series.

 

[Happy Noodle Boy]

Re: the root of all evil

is it available online?

Rename this .torrent and away ye go.

View attachment the.root.of.all.evil.1of2.txt

 

[Corey]

Re: the root of all evil

Seconded. Money and Fame are the new faiths of the western world.

 

[ICUH8N]

Re: the root of all evil

Seconded. Money and Fame are the new faiths of the western world.

That's a bit rich, comin from you.

 

[Corey]

Re: the root of all evil

That's a bit rich, comin from you.

It's about as rich as i'm ever gonna be pal.

 

[frambosenshmak]

Re: the root of all evil

is it available online?

edit: i seem to be asking this a lot recently.

are you only partially online?

for your collection, heres a really nice bit of animation/film/story that interconnects politics religion and war with.... you guessed... the burning bush sitting at the top of the pile

http://www.knife-party.net/flash/barry.html

 

[egg_]

Re: the root of all evil

Didn't see this, but from a position of complete ignorance I'd be inclined to agree with Snaky for a change. I was always inclined to think that "faith" in general is not conducive to human happiness, but I've come around to thinking that people will believe in any old shite that allows them to see themselves as better than other people (and therefore allow them to be mean to them), and "faith=bad" is kind of a red herring.

Anyway, does RD mean to say there was no bad dudes before religion was invented? Surely he's aware of now fucking nasty animals and children are to each other ...

A zoologist trying to make sociological or even philosophical point is a dangerous thing.

What did you do in college again dude?

 

[shitepipe]

Re: the root of all evil

Anyway, does RD mean to say there was no bad dudes before religion was invented? Surely he's aware of now fucking nasty animals and children are to each other ...

eh, 'nasty' is a human concept that cant really be applied to animals. they just do what they have to...

oh, and there's a dawkins thread floating about in the politics section as well

 

[snakybus]

Re: the root of all evil

Surely he's aware of now fucking nasty animals and children are to each other ...

Ironically (or maybe BBC put it on on purpose), there was a documentary on before it about chimps beating seven kinds of shite out of each other.

What did you do in college again dude?

heh heh, zoology. But danger is my confirmation name! Michael Joseph Danger Stevens.

At least Dawkins is provocative. There's far too little in normal discourse that's truly provocative. Anyone see Harold Pinter's diatribe against America on telly recently? Vicious stuff.

 

[snakybus]

Re: Dawkins

Ever notice it's always the evolutionists who get up in arms about the whole God thing? It's because religion attacks their profession. You never see physicists being too bothered about ranting on about religion. They're like, yeah whatever, string theory, man, now that's way trippier than Buddhism, but...whatever.

But also, biologists, no matter how much they theorise, are rooted in the here and now, as well as the geological past. It's all about the earth and stuff made on the earth and how it came about and where it might go and all that. And Dawkins, as their mouthpiece, is now the star of the show, now that "intelligent design" is making waves in the US. But Dawkins is by no means the most enlightened evolutionist. He's just one of the most articulate.

Personally, I think trying to argue about religion with biological arguments is like trying to scientifically analyse music. But of course he's perfectly within his rights to batter religion. I just think he's anging on the wrong door.

One thing I do find worrying, however, or at least a bit silly, is Dawkins's more and more frequent allusions in his own work to religious iconography, like "climbing a mountain" or referring to science as a "pilgrimage", as if science is a new religion with him as the science pope and Reason as the God. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this idea could take root. I mean, Doctors are already this age's druids, geneticists its magicians, technology its magic.

Basically, I'd be worried about handing over the world's spiritual well-being to a bunch of specy nerds.

 

[egg_]

Re: the root of all evil

eh, 'nasty' is a human concept that cant really be applied to animals. they just do what they have to...

Think of any human behaviour that would be regarded as nasty - bullying, murder, stealing, physical intimidation, etc. Animals do that shit too, and that's what I meant.
Perhaps the appropriateness of the word "nasty" could be argued, but you know what I meant, and so would Richard Dawkins

 

[shitepipe]

Re: Dawkins

One thing I do find worrying, however, or at least a bit silly, is Dawkins's more and more frequent allusions in his own work to religious iconography, like "climbing a mountain" or referring to science as a "pilgrimage", as if science is a new religion with him as the science pope and Reason as the God. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this idea could take root. I mean, Doctors are already this age's druids, geneticists its magicians, technology its magic.

completely agree.. the faith we have in science at the moment is blinding, and questioning it leads to cries of heresy and 'witch!'

hmmm, does that stuff ring a bell?

 

[quasiquasi]

Re: Dawkins

Take acupuncture for example. I don't know much about this kind of thing but is there an accepted scientific theory/explanation as to why it works? Assuming it does work - why isn't there such a theory? Surely some hotshot young scientists will make their careers by proving that acupuncture works and explaining why.

Just had a quick search for this - it seems that nobody knows for certain what acupuncture does, and many scientists aren't even sure that it does work. Some studies show one thing and others show the opposite. It's not as if the topic is ignored, though - a search for "acupuncture" at www.sciencedirect.com gives over 100 papers for the past 12 months...

 

[taubstumm]

Re: Dawkins

You never see physicists being too bothered about ranting on about religion.

well now, if only we had a physicist hanging around to confirm or deny yon above-quoted snakyconjecture.

oh, wait! we do! and he has indeed been ranting. here, for example.

 

[Rogue]

Re: Dawkins

completely agree.. the faith we have in science at the moment is blinding, and questioning it leads to cries of heresy and 'witch!'

hmmm, does that stuff ring a bell?

But dude! with science you can go and follow the chain of logic and check every link for inconsitencies and make your own judgement, with faith-based answers your line of enquiry stops at faith, you either choose to believe or don't.

If you feel blinded by science then go and read the studies for yourself, it's your choice to blindly follow it, why not follow it enlightenedly(!).

 

[shitepipe]

Re: Dawkins

But dude! with science you can go and follow the chain of logic and check every link for inconsitencies and make your own judgement, with faith-based answers your line of enquiry stops at faith, you either choose to believe or don't.

If you feel blinded by science then go and read the studies for yourself, it's your choice to blindly follow it, why not follow it enlightenedly(!).

argh! now it appears that i'm advocating some kind of creationist/religious worldview which i certainly dont want to..

i'm just saying there are parallels with our faith in the scientific process and those of previous times in whichever religion was about.
these religions take their laws from a prescribed ancient text (considerd to be the 'truth') and deduce the laws of the universe from it (which they considered a type of science), we take ours from a mathematical logic formulated thousands of years ago (considerd to be the 'truth') and deduce our laws from there. but this logic is still a construct of the human mind, and not something which is necessarily 'true', although it does provide us with alot of answers...

 

[billygannon]

Re: Dawkins

oh, i was going to have another bash at a proper reply here, but i have to go to bed. so instead i'll ask - why is this thread in politics?

Why has this been moved to Arts and Culture? I'd see this more as a politics issue.

 

[snakybus]

Re: Dawkins

well now, if only we had a physicist hanging around to confirm or deny yon above-quoted snakyconjecture.

oh, wait! we do! and he has indeed been ranting. here, for example.

Photon, rant? He always seems to me to take a fair and measured approach in his arguments.

 

[Rogue]

Re: Dawkins

argh! now it appears that i'm advocating some kind of creationist/religious worldview which i certainly dont want to..

i'm just saying there are parallels with our faith in the scientific process and those of previous times in whichever religion was about.
these religions take their laws from a prescribed ancient text (considerd to be the 'truth') and deduce the laws of the universe from it (which they considered a type of science), we take ours from a mathematical logic formulated thousands of years ago (considerd to be the 'truth') and deduce our laws from there. but this logic is still a construct of the human mind, and not something which is necessarily 'true', although it does provide us with alot of answers...

I agree, there are parallels in that we choose to believe what one sect tells us over another be it religion or science and rarely take the time to investigate their claims, we just look for what 'fits' with us.

It's like the old chinese story of chuang chou who awoke from a dream of being a butterfly and wondered if he was actually a butterfly now dreaming that he was a man ( i think i bring up that story every time their's a faith/science argument).

 

[egg_]

Re: Dawkins

the faith we have in science at the moment is blinding, and questioning it leads to cries of heresy and 'witch!'

Questioning what, exactly? The Scientific Method? Specific conjectures or conclusions in specific theories? People's blind faith?