richard dawkins (1 Viewer)

[hugh]

Any of you dudes read John Gray? He argues, like Diarmuid, that modern liberal atheism is as much a form of mind-control as organized religion ever was. But then he seems to hate more or less everything.

 

[snakybus]

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).

Yes, of course this is where science is at now. But science, no matter how objective it purports to be, is a form of human expression and therefore subjective. Not only that - it's also subject to change. It's generally accepted that it's not science's task to deal with emotion now, but I actually think it won't always be like that. I actually think that science must change into something that can encompass the entire human expression potential, or it will die. (I'm talking over a long time, you understand).

 

[ann post]

sorta thinking a bit about what snaky is saying there, does dawkins accept that if he 'converted' people to science - they'd probably just blindly follow the exact same science for another 2000 years, and hung draw and quarter you for telling them that parts are debatable and open to reinvention?? even science has always been guilty of that. great one liner my uncle came out with recently 'the pioneer is the guy with the arrow in his back'
..people like to think they know definite things, even if they are mental..

 

[snakybus]

In defence of science's possible potential for expressing beauty, this is pretty cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28

 

[egg_]

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?

Me, personally? Absolutely.

How about you? Are you advising me to give up trying to convince people that I'm right?

 

[Diumraid]

... but having said that obviously atheism is fashionable at the minute, in the media and on the internet at least. Like indie rock
(bah! quoted the wrong quote)
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

Would you say that the young Catholics of Meath are genuinely devout? I suspect most people are thoroughly secularised but still go through the motions.

 

[ann post]

Would you say that the young Catholics of Meath are genuinely devout? I suspect most people are thoroughly secularised but still go through the motions.

i think their quite meathium in thier beliefs.

 

[snakybus]

Me, personally? Absolutely.

How about you? Are you advising me to give up trying to convince people that I'm right?

Not at all, knock yourself out!

 

[magicbastarder]

sorta thinking a bit about what snaky is saying there, does dawkins accept that if he 'converted' people to science - they'd probably just blindly follow the exact same science for another 2000 years, and hung draw and quarter you for telling them that parts are debatable and open to reinvention??

whatever you might think about dawkins, i certainly don't think he'd refuse to change his stance if faced with solid evidence which contradicted his beliefs.

 

[ann post]

yes him individually, was i tlaking about him individaully?? no.

does anyone else think of dawkins in terms of being cockney rhyming slang for stephen hawkins??

 

[magicbastarder]

I actually think that science must change into something that can encompass the entire human expression potential, or it will die. (I'm talking over a long time, you understand).

i don't see how physics, for example, can be dealt with on an emotional level - the laws of physics exist without regard for human expression.
maybe we're arguing about different things - the difference between the laws of nature and what those laws actually mean for us?

 

[shitepipe]

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.

if this is the case, then the inverse should be true, so we can then explain the universe in terms of love, jealousy, envy.

then this whole debate will be solved, all knowledge will be one, and i shall rule the world.

 

[egg_]

Would you say that the young Catholics of Meath are genuinely devout? I suspect most people are thoroughly secularised but still go through the motions.

I think that their religion is a fundamental part of their lives that they just take for granted and don't spend any time intellectualising. They believe that God made the world and their grannies are in heaven, they get their children baptised and go to Mass on Sundays (and they know the priest). Is that what you mean by "devout"? They don't wonder about what God is, or what heaven is like, and I wouldn't say any of them ever had a mystical religious experience

 

[snakybus]

i don't see how physics, for example, can be dealt with on an emotional level - the laws of physics exist without regard for human expression.

Do they? If they're not expressed, do they exist? That's some deep shit, and I don't know the answer to that question, but it has potential.

maybe we're arguing about different things - the difference between the laws of nature and what those laws actually mean for us?

By the same token, can these things be untangled?

 

[egg_]

By the same token, can these things be untangled?

That's exactly what science does, isn't it? Or tries to do, with some success?

 

[snakybus]

You know, this all feels stuffy and academic and completely missing the point when you read this. I honestly wouldn't blame any Irish person for becoming an atheist.

 

[cunt]

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

I don't see it. Who is behind this mind control and to what end? I don't accept that pop science is mind control ,other than to the extent that it may be influential. But then again any influential idea could be considered mind control.

Incidentally, can I ask what approach to life you are advocating? Looking to religion for moral guidance? So, for most Irish people that means looking to an institution that harbours paedophiles to tell you that gay people are immoral and sex before marriage is a sin.

 

[pissypants]

sorta thinking a bit about what snaky is saying there, does dawkins accept that if he 'converted' people to science - they'd probably just blindly follow the exact same science for another 2000 years, and hung draw and quarter you for telling them that parts are debatable and open to reinvention?? even science has always been guilty of that. great one liner my uncle came out with recently 'the pioneer is the guy with the arrow in his back'
..people like to think they know definite things, even if they are mental..

Dawkins is pretty clear on how he doesn't think science could/should be a new religion. That although it can appear that there is a hierarchy in the scientific community, and an uphill struggle to getting new ideas accepted, that publishing papers / peer review etc. is the surefire way to prove your scientific ideas and that goes for overthrowing the old ones too. It's human nature to cling to something you've known and trusted, but, if you can prove your scientific argument, the old ideas die - e.g. (to take a really basic idea) the sun doesn't rotate around the earth, or dark matter actually exists etc.

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

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.

looking to an institution that harbours paedophiles to tell you that gay people are immoral and sex before marriage is a sin.

these points have been over looked a bit so far i think. im a fairly easy going atheist. if people want to believe they'll be reunited with their parents in heaven, fine. i also think that the church is good at funerals and stuff like that, helping to speak on behalf of communties when something shit happens. what does get me annoyed is when people use religion as a justification to interfere in peoples lives through the law such as with the current gay marriage thing, and in the past issues such as divorce, contraception, abortion etc. religion, in the form of the catholic church, has made a right fuck of ireland. we need someone to deal with this menace! militant atheists are a pain but not as annoying as the pope telling africans that condoms are no good for preventing aids or mormons telling californians that gay marriage will undermine their families. im sure this is the kind of thing that motivates the more loudmouth athiests to be loud rather than simply an urge to use science to win a cheap argument about faith as its grass root support that gives organised religion its clout. anyway, why shouldnt atheists make a song and dance about their beliefs too if the religious people are doing it. maybe theres a few different arguments going on.

 

[Lili Marlene]

That's exactly what science does, isn't it? Or tries to do, with some success?

that's exactly what philosophy does as well, with some success.

You know, this all feels stuffy and academic and completely missing the point when you read this. I honestly wouldn't blame any Irish person for becoming an atheist.

I think we need to seperate religion from the acts carried out in its name. People did these things, people part of the biggest powers in the land at the time. This doesn't make atheism seem like a better alternative to me, it just shows that people can abuse whatever power they have to horrible ends.