richard dawkins (1 Viewer)

[cunt]

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..

The experience of love is such that people often do describe it through metaphor, symbolism and various poetic/artistic techniques. That in itself does not defy logic. The psychologist Steven Pinker describes how humans have a readiness for metaphor in the Stuff of Thought. Also, if emotion was simply a function of myth or some unquantifiable process, why do peoples' emotions change in very predictable ways when specific parts of their brains are harmed?

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...

I would suggest that's a very big leap. I don't see any connection between "The world has a physical reality" and "I want lots of stuff". I don't think arriving at a materialist conclusion has any inevitable implication for how you live your life. I also don't think morality has to be religiously derived.

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

I can't see anything to suggest there is any attempt by "the man" to control peoples minds through the popularization of science (if this is indeed what you're implying!).

 

[Diumraid]

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.

A perfect example of the idea that all can be understood and mastered. Similarly with Mr Cunt's point that there is a physiological reality to emotion... that's not in doubt, there's a cognitive aspect of concept too. I'm talking about the language used to communicate these things.

Morality is not identical to religion but it has been bound up with religious tradition so completely that I wonder how it can be completely extricated. That is to say that what has been established is a part of our humanity, throughout history. I don't believe it can be re-invented from scratch any more than language can.

And yes, pop science is the new vehicle for mind control whether you see it or not.

 

[Bladez]

A perfect example of the idea that all can be understood and mastered. Similarly with Mr Cunt's point that there is a physiological reality to emotion... that's not in doubt, there's a cognitive aspect of concept too. I'm talking about the language used to communicate these things.

Sorry. I'd completely missed your point.

 

[pissypants]

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"? )

There is no unified atheist movement- something that Dawkins thinks there should be. Dawkins coined the phrase "brights" but no-one particularly agrees with him. Hitchens for one despises the term / concept.

 

[pissypants]

Morality is not identical to religion but it has been bound up with religious tradition so completely that I wonder how it can be completely extricated.

All your atheist friends are rapists, thieves and murderers?

 

[Froog]

B) To isolate the individual for consumerist purposes.

people are being "programmed" away from theism for consumerist purposes?
how does that work?

 

[magicbastarder]

Dawkins coined the phrase "brights" but no-one particularly agrees with him.

i thought it was dennett who coined it?

 

[pissypants]

i thought it was dennett who coined it?

I heard it attributed to Dawkins, but could be very wrong.

 

[snakybus]

There is no unified atheist movement- something that Dawkins thinks there should be. Dawkins coined the phrase "brights" but no-one particularly agrees with him. Hitchens for one despises the term / concept.

I did say "a sort of crude brotherhood", didn't I? Hitchens might despise the term, but he hangs out with those guys--for whatever reason.

(And yes, it was actually Dennet)

 

[snakybus]

I think it's interesting -- and this is simply an observation -- that even those atheists who aren't from the scientific tradition, like Hitchens for example, do bang on about science all the time, something they don't really have a whole lot of experience of. They talk about "Dawkins their friend" (I can't imagine Hitchens and Dawkins being buddies if they had been at school together, at all). They talk about evolution, etc, to get their point across. And I think this is because science has come under fire so much, and creationism is such a silly thing, it's SO easy to target. I'm sure Dawkins the nerd is delighted that the cool boys have suddenly adopted him as "Brains", but it does smack of something altogether more directed, and not altogether concerned with actual truth, and the actual happiness of people.

For all its great structures and brilliant minds, science is a young dicipline - a sort of teenage discipline - and has yet to mature into a truly rounded way of looking at the world. It's far younger than philosophy, for example, than politics, the arts, than mysticism. Biology, in particular is very young. As Richard Feynman said, you have to go a long way in physics to find a puzzle, in biology all you have to do is stick a plant cell under a microscope (or words to that effect). Any scientist will tell you that science is not concerned with that side of human expression that's intangible. Obviously, you'll never feel any plainly-expressed emotion in a scientific paper. You'll seldom hear a scientist state that any sort of creativity was involved in a scientific development. But it's not autistic in the sense that it can't express emotion: it simply chooses not to. Down the line, it could become a discipline that does this. But right now, it's naive.

And I actually think this is another reason atheists, or at least those atheists with an axe to grind, always bring out the biologists. Because it's easy to poo-poo abstract thought when you have the plain bread-and-butter realism of biology by your side. Why doesn't Chris Hitchens, for example, someone from a political/arts background throw the atheist-driven poetry of Philip Larkin into the argument? He's a big fan. I'll tell you why. Because he knows that trying to tackle an abstract concept with another complex, abstract idea--poetry--doesn't make for good press. People would think he's full of shit. And, even though evolution is an abstract idea itself (yes, it has its own metaphors, its own gobbledegook), the public mind have a basic understanding of what it means. When you have the simple, cogent and--let's be clear--apocraphyl cartoon of an ape turning into a Neanderthal and eventually into Homo Sapiens, and "Brains" by your side to back it up, you have a pointed tool with which you can hack away at people's deepest, most cherished beliefs. And that's really what gets a lot of these guys off. I have yet to encounter one of them coming forth with a plan for "a better world". All they do is sit in their ivory towers and bang on about how it's all bullshit. "Everything! It's all bullshit!" they quiver.

Here's the thing. As a scientist, Dawkins was pretty damn good. Like lots and lots of scientists around the world, he actually created something real and amazing, enlightening people and getting them to explore the beauty of the natural world through science, and maybe even the beauty of science itself. Nowadays, he doesn't seem to be the least bit interested in creating anything, in enlightenment, in exploring the joy of anything. Like Hitchens et al, he now just wants to win arguments and strut around like the tallest flamingo in the enclosure.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

people are being "programmed" away from theism for consumerist purposes?
how does that work?

There used to be a catholic monthly magazine called 30 Days. My dad used to be a subscriber.

One month they had a cover story about the Italian film director Passolini.

Passolini in the 60s before he was murdered had written quite a bit about this. How people are turned into consumers, how religion is marginalised and irrelevant in this world. I was rereading the article lately cause I found the copy of the magazing while cleaning.

Anyway,

There was such a rumpus in the US that:
A. A catholic magazine would put a gay Marxist on the cover
B. They would dare suggest that Adam Smith is not a arcangel and that owning shit is not Gods plan

The upshot was that the article closed the magazine.

 

[Diumraid]

There may not be an actual organisation with membership cards or association of any sort but it certainly is a movement - a mass happening. As fashion designers are to what people actually wear, so scientists are to what people actually think. People aren't actually consulting with each other when they all turn out in particular styles. Chaos in action.

 

[Diumraid]

There used to be a catholic monthly magazine called 30 Days. My dad used to be a subscriber.

One month they had a cover story about the Italian film director Passolini.

Passolini in the 60s before he was murdered had written quite a bit about this. How people are turned into consumers, how religion is marginalised and irrelevant in this world. I was rereading the article lately cause I found the copy of the magazing while cleaning.

Anyway,

There was such a rumpus in the US that:
A. A catholic magazine would put a gay Marxist on the cover
B. They would dare suggest that Adam Smith is not a arcangel and that owning shit is not Gods plan

The upshot was that the article closed the magazine.

Beautiful!

 

[egg_]

so scientists are to what people actually think

Haha
Look beyond the city walls, dude. Atheists are pretty fucking thin on the ground in rural Co. Meath

 

[egg_]

... but having said that obviously atheism is fashionable at the minute, in the media and on the internet at least. Like indie rock

I dunno, snaky and D - it seems a little bit like your main problem with "atheism" is its annoying evangelisers, and your distaste for the chip-eating proles that are taking a passing interest in it

 

[egg_]

Ah that's a bit low, I didn't really mean that

 

[snakybus]

haha

go to atheist confession

 

[Moods For Mallards]

I was an atheist way before Dawkins was. He's some character, I used to see him on his way to mass, a big set of rosary beads in his paws. He's changed his tune since they wouldn't let him marry that aul protestant divorceé.

 

[magicbastarder]

Obviously, you'll never feel any plainly-expressed emotion in a scientific paper. You'll seldom hear a scientist state that any sort of creativity was involved in a scientific development. But it's not autistic in the sense that it can't express emotion: it simply chooses not to.

i don't know if science can use emotion; i'm sure some would argue that that's one of its strengths - emotion is subjective, and science needs to be as objective as possible, for reasons of clarity among other things.
it's not that science is denying emotion, it's just that it's not science's task to deal with emotion (in general; i'm obviously not talking about those parts of science which study human emotion).

 

[snakybus]

... but having said that obviously atheism is fashionable at the minute, in the media and on the internet at least. Like indie rock

I dunno, snaky and D - it seems a little bit like your main problem with "atheism" is its annoying evangelisers, and your distaste for the chip-eating proles that are taking a passing interest in it

Anyway, egg, it's not that so much - do you really think there's any point in trying to convince you of beliefs other than the ones you have, in cold, logical , non-cultural terms? I think the more interesting debate is the cultural one, the characters involved.

Also, you could counter that way more people are probably atheists now because it's fashionable, as you say, or because of their distaste for creationism, George Bush, or whatever. It's certainly got little to do with their knowledge of science.

The question is whether this devalues the argument--is our perception of truth not always culturally biased?