Is Richard Dawkins' Anti-Religion Campaign Dividing Society?

[Curious3141]

Has anyone mentioned the South Park take on Dawkins anticrusade taken to its (il)logical extreme?

Science damn all of you!

 

[0TheSwerve0]

hehe, no *checking out now*

 

[kant]

I'm posting this in social sciences because it seems like Richard Dawkins is on a crusade against the social aceptance of religion. So this topic is sort of a religion topic, sort of a biology topic, sort of a physics topic, but allin all its about our society and how we accept beliefs.

Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins" " and so I have been watching a few videos on You Tube.

Personally I agree with virtually everything Dawkins says and think his logical consistency and philosophical integrity is unsurpassable. The potential ramifications of this 'crusade' I'm not so sure about though. (though I don't disagree with him doing it at all)

Anyway, watch these films and tell me what you think of what he is saying.

Interview
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY

The root of all evil
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AB2vmj8eyMk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C10sSC2kB3Q&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wr_qZ3P4nl4&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-cZGGD5grkQ&mode=related&search=

And a funny interview with Stephen Colbert
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X1fTkvefu5s

Shane

I don t think science is any more solid than religion. In religion, there is a god, and in physics, there is the laws of nature. They are both logical necessity in there respective believe system.

 

[Another God]

I don t think science is any more solid than religion. In religion, there is a god, and in physics, there is the laws of nature. They are both logical necessity in there respective believe system.

One is observable and measurable. The other is a convenient fiction?

 

[Hurkyl]

One is observable and measurable. The other is a convenient fiction?

*gasp* You mean, you can use the tenets of science to justify studying science?

 

[Another God]

*gasp* You mean, you can use the tenets of science to justify studying science?

Well, if we want progress in the real world, you have to use real world tenets. The metaphysics of science may not be infallible, but at least it has had inumerous practical applications since it was applied, unlike every other metaphysics ever described.

If people want to live in a dream world, fine, that's their problem.

 

[Hurkyl]

Well, if we want progress in the real world, you have to use real world tenets. The metaphysics of science may not be infallible, but at least it has had inumerous practical applications since it was applied, unlike every other metaphysics ever described.

If people want to live in a dream world, fine, that's their problem.

*gasp* You did it again! And here I was thinking you couldn't use empiricism to circularly justify science.

What does "dream world" have to do with anything? It doesn't seem to follow from anything you've said today.

 

[SF]

Since when is reality a tenet of science?
Reality would be there even if there was no science to study it.

The "battle" between science and religion is simply a confrontation of which one better describes reality - reality that is independent of religion or science.

 

[navneet1990]

SF i think youve got your a problem in the understanding of the word religion...
thats acceptable considering the fact that some people have completely misguided most in the way they define and understand religion...that what your talking about is not religion its blind faith...

what me to define religion for you SANSKRIT /INDIAN style..?ive not read his book but from what i read he has been targeting what he believes are religion and says that they are harmful for society.
ohk so i tolerate him
what next he targets christianity,judaism,islam etc.
that is what I've read from the reviews

[ if i am wrong at any stage where what I've read about him is incorrect please correct me]

ohk so he thinks these are organised religions and they are not suited for growth and all

ohk fine ill tolerate him for just a second before i make my point..

when you talk about religion arent you supposed to include all
i mean either you define religion properly...and then attack or you don't altougether..

what about religions like hinduism,buddhism,jainism,other eastern great "religions"
is there a mention of such religions in his so called "BOOK"?

from what I've read there isnt
so what i infer is that he is some kitty who is i should say trying to prove his santity by disproving others by avoiding those who become a hurdle in his path..
isnt that now soo unscientific...
also by the looks of it he seems to be the biggest threat to humans than hitler...
but then again those are my views from the facts that I've got to know
then again my facts maybe wrong..
do correct me if they are

 

[arildno]

Some delusions are harmless, others are not.
What was the point again, navneet?

 

[navneet1990]

which point??

 

[navneet1990]

im jus saying that richard is like a kid solving sums
if they are too hard he's avoided them
while attacking the others with full vigour...
he and a lot of people have got their definition of religion wrong...
no wonder such a thing was inevitable...
but its stilll a good read i guess...

 

[Another God]

*gasp* You did it again! And here I was thinking you couldn't use empiricism to circularly justify science.

What does "dream world" have to do with anything? It doesn't seem to follow from anything you've said today.

Empiricism is measurable observable, directly inferable facts about our world. The world which affects us. The one thing which matters to us all...reality. Anything which isn't measurable, observable or directly inferable can only be described as 'imagined' and hence part of a dream world.

While choosing to use empiricism to find out about our universe is a metaphysical choice (maybe we are in the matrix and our experienced world is not the 'real' world), so long as it produces empirical results, it is indeed being used circularly to justify itself. The only real goal of science, naturalism, empiricism etc is to find out facts about our existence. We do this by looking at our existence. Everytime we learn something new, we apply it, and it produces results. Circular? Sure, why not. Practical? Absolutely.

Better than living in a dream world where 'praying' for answers does stuff only because you believe it does.

 

[Another God]

ive not read his book but from what i read he has been targeting what he believes are religion and says that they are harmful for society.
ohk so i tolerate him
what next he targets christianity,judaism,islam etc.
that is what I've read from the reviews

Actually he quite clearly explains what his objectives are. They are not to target extremist religions (although obviously he uses them in his discussion of the consequences of religion). He isn't just trying to target christianity judaism etc. He is systematically arguing that any belief system, ANY belief system, is a scientific statement.

There is a God. That is a scientific statement. We are reincarnated after death. Scientific statement. We must induce trance like states and worship gods or else they will be displeased with us... Scientific Statement.

Everything that any religion says about our universe is a statement which should be critically analused and tested. A universe created by an intelligent God would clearly be very different from a Universe which arose without intelligent design.

Thus, Dawkins point is that while we may not be able to completely disprove the existence of God (just as you can't disprove an assertion that there is a fine china teacup orbitting the sun between Mars and Jupiter), we can look at all of the evidence and reasonably conclude that God doesn't exist, and pretty much every religious claim is irrelevent.

ohk so he thinks these are organised religions and they are not suited for growth and all

Organised religions bring about toleration of irrational precepts which allow extreme people to build up extreme ideas, therefore opening up much greater possibility for fundamentalist murderers, suicide bombers etc.

If people were less accepting of irrational beleifs, maybe these suicide bombers would have had their beliefs challenged before they got to the "When I suicide, I will go to eternal bliss with the virgins and the clouds and the best everything..bla blah". Clearly that belief is irrational and ridiculous, but they only formed it because it was the conclusion of their slightly less irrational belief system. Question it from the beginning, and they will never reach the "Suicide is a cool option because I will be rewarded" stage.

when you talk about religion arent you supposed to include all
i mean either you define religion properly...and then attack or you don't altogether..

what about religions like hinduism,buddhism,jainism,other eastern great "religions"
is there a mention of such religions in his so called "BOOK"?

Yes. But he does spend most of his energy on christianity because that is the civilisation we live in, the dominant religion of the english language, and the most popular religion. But all religions are treated equally, and the point is the same across the whole table. Christianity is as unlikely as hinduism is as unlikely as Apollo and Zeus.

so what i infer is that he is some kitty who is i should say trying to prove his santity by disproving others by avoiding those who become a hurdle in his path..
isnt that now soo unscientific...
also by the looks of it he seems to be the biggest threat to humans than hitler...

Wrong. Simply wrong.

 

[Another God]

im jus saying that richard is like a kid solving sums
if they are too hard he's avoided them

Actually its quite the opposite. Religion is the eternally avoided question. People just assume the answer everytime they get into it. Dawkins is actually tackling one of the most difficult questions ever because it is about time someone stood up and did it.

while attacking the others with full vigour...
he and a lot of people have got their definition of religion wrong...
no wonder such a thing was inevitable...
but its stilll a good read i guess...

No, nothing wrong with the definition of religion, infact it has nothing to do with the definition of religion. Dawkins is a scientist and he is dedicated to the truth. So forget religion, let's talk about the truth. Does God exists? In reality? No.

If you want to 'believe' God exists, then fine, 'believe' it, but DO NOT say that your belief is real, because you have no basis for that.

 

[Hurkyl]

While choosing to use empiricism to find out about our universe is a metaphysical choice (maybe we are in the matrix and our experienced world is not the 'real' world), so long as it produces empirical results, it is indeed being used circularly to justify itself.

Okay, good. Now, to move onto a stickier question...

You believe in empiricism.

I expect you believe in rationalism too.

You appear to have the belief that all knowledge must either come from empiricism and rationalism.

Why do you think that?

 

[SF]

You believe in empiricism.

I expect you believe in rationalism too.

You appear to have the belief that all knowledge must either come from empiricism and rationalism.

Why do you think that?

Trying to use philosophy? Extra, extra, ask Feynman all about it :D
It's either real or it's a supposition. That's my philosophy.

ive not read his book but from what i read he has been targeting what he believes are religion and says that they are harmful for society.
ohk so i tolerate him

He discusses the general idea of "gods", and sais that the probability of existence of any "gods" is very little.. as little as the existence of ogres and tooth fairies. This applies to all supernatural religions.
Every religion that contains supposition instead of fact is a delusion, according to Dawkins.

The talk about dangerous religions is indeed an argument to appeal to the majority of his readers, who will be Christians (less jews, less muslims, but it applies to them too - and almost no buddhists or whatever).

Further more, he tries to make a case for atheism, to create a proper brand.
Currently, calling yourself an atheist is the end of your political career, etc, etc. He hopes to change that.

Here is a nice collection of Dawkins videos, selected from YouTube and Google Video: http://physicshead.blogspot.com/search/label/Dawkins
(NOT SPAM!)

 

[Gib Z]

Lol i thought Richard Dawkins was a fictional character, he appears in a 2 Recent South Park episodes that I believe you may find interesting. It basically pictured Dawkins Lobbying for Atheism and then, well..i don't want to ruin the ending for you :D If you want the south park edisodes, here they are:

http://movies4.viettunes.com/1fileprotection/southpark/

The Dawkins Episodes are a 2 parter, named Go God, Go! and Go GOd, Go, II!, episode numbers 1012 and 1013, theyre around the bottom and hilarious, although you don't want your kids seeing it...

 

[Hurkyl]

It's either real or it's a supposition. That's my philosophy.
Every religion that contains supposition instead of fact is a delusion, according to Dawkins.

(Putting my Ancient Greek hat on) That Zeus exists is a fact, not a supposition, so you'll get no argument from me.

 

[Tony11235]

by the way, atheism is a belief just like any other belief. What cannt you understand about it?

Sorry for the late post. It is just me or do most of us here describe atheism as the absence of belief and presence of reason and skepticism? I know I do.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Sorry for the late post. It is just me or do most of us here describe atheism as the absence of belief and presence of reason and skepticism? I know I do.

Why not just "not believing in God(s)?" You're loading up the definition to suggest that anyone who is not an atheist is irrational.

 

[Hurkyl]

Sorry for the late post. It is just me or do most of us here describe atheism as the absence of belief and presence of reason and skepticism? I know I do.

Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

 

[Another God]

Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

No, agnosticism describes someone who cannot make up their mind eitherway. They are not sure. Atheism is no belief in a God. It a passive position, although you can take an active position and assert that there cannot be any gods, which sis till technically atheism, but subtly different, and hence why some people prefer to call that strong atheism.

Atheism in its most straight forward form is a passive lack of belief and requires no justification. Every human is born an atheist, and is free to choose their beliefs from that moment forwards.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, agnosticism describes someone who cannot make up their mind eitherway. They are not sure. Atheism is no belief in a God. It a passive position, although you can take an active position and assert that there cannot be any gods, which sis till technically atheism, but subtly different, and hence why some people prefer to call that strong atheism.

Atheism in its most straight forward form is a passive lack of belief and requires no justification. Every human is born an atheist, and is free to choose their beliefs from that moment forwards.

I never understood, maybe you can explain -- what is the point of recent attempts to redefine atheism to include agnosticism?

 

[Tony11235]

Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

To be agnostic is to hold the position that something cannot be proved or disproved. When it comes to proposing a god, one has to be agnostic. But that doesn't mean either way is equally likely. Like many have said, it's no different than saying that I have an invisible friend. So one might as well lean towards the likelihood of non-existence.

 

[Another God]

I never understood, maybe you can explain -- what is the point of recent attempts to redefine atheism to include agnosticism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism goes into the problems with the term agnosticism. I don't know if there are attempts to redefine it into atheism, if anything someone agnostic is more theist than atheist (since they qualify the concept of God with a chance of existence).

Dawkins does talk about it somewhat in TGD, and he simply argues that to be agnostic towards theism is not a reasonable opinion because you are saying that there is just as much chance of there being a God as there is of there not being a God. That implies that there is evidence for and evidence against. The argument then of course proceeds to claim that there is no evidence for Gods... afterall, if there was, why sit on the fence over the matter? If I knew of any evidence for God, I'd believe. But there is 0, so atheism is much more reasonable.

 

[Hurkyl]

When it comes to proposing a god, one has to be agnostic.
...
But like many have said, it's no different than saying that I have an invisible friend.

Now why do you think that?

I assume that it is because you believe that reason and experiment are the only sources of knowledge. Can you justify that belief?

So one might as well lean towards the likelihood non-existence.

Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?

 

[Tony11235]

Now why do you think that?

Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?

Can we not assign a probability of likelihood to proposals such as a supernatural being? If so, then I can certainly lean towards there not being a god.

 

[Hurkyl]

Er, to which part are you replying? I'll assume this:

Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?

Can we not assign a probability of likelihood to proposals such as a supernatural being?

I don't see how you could, if the issue is unknowable. That's what unknowable means! If you could assign a probability, then that provides some degree of knowledge.

 

[Tony11235]

Er, to which part are you replying? I'll assume this:I don't see how you could, if the issue is unknowable. That's what unknowable means! If you could assign a probability, then that provides some degree of knowledge.

Unknowable isn't the right word. Not disprovable would better describe it. From a scientific standpoint at least. Say something is not disprovable, does that imply that I have zero knowledge on or about it?

 

[PIT2]

If I knew of any evidence for God, I'd believe. But there is 0, so atheism is much more reasonable.

What do u consider evidence? One has to be careful not to define it in such a way that it rules out god by definition. Here's a suggestion for judging arguments 'against' and 'for' the existence of god:

Notice of the paralels between 'god' and human mind. Whenever someone talks of god and assigns a probability to it, ask urself if his reasoning doesn't equally apply to human mind.

 

[Astronuc]

Do you think the progress we've made in the U.S. is pretty good or just ok?

In some areas, the progress has been significant. In other areas, I don't see much progress.

This commentary reasonably describes the current situation regarding persistent elements of segregation in the US (and it is certainly not unique to the US, but is generally the case world wide).
The Last Race Problem
By ORLANDO PATTERSON
Published: December 30, 2006

Accompanying public integration has been the near complete isolation of blacks from the private life of the white majority.

Another area where the US seems to be digressing is the rise of fundamentalist religious views - in which 'critical scrutiny' of beliefs and ideas is excluded, especially the exclusion of contradictory ideas - and the concommitant intolerance of alternative or contradictory beliefs and ideas.

Religion is not the problem - it's the people and the belief in the supremacy of one's beliefs which are the problem. The problems ascribed to religion are not because of religion, but the misuse or misappropriation of religion.

 

[Another God]

What do u consider evidence? One has to be careful not to define it in such a way that it rules out god by definition.

I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena. Simple.

Show me a booming voice from the clouds. Show me clouds reshaping themselves to spell out "God exists", show me miracles which simply cannot be part of physics...there is an endless list of possibilities of how a God could assert itself as real, and more importantly a whole universe of time and space for it to happen in anyway. But instead we get this very stable very predictable continuity.

 

[SF]

I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena. Simple.

Show me a booming voice from the clouds. Show me clouds reshaping themselves to spell out "God exists", show me miracles which simply cannot be part of physics...there is an endless list of possibilities of how a God could assert itself as real, and more importantly a whole universe of time and space for it to happen in anyway. But instead we get this very stable very predictable continuity.

I'm fond of the Burning Bush, myself. =)

(Putting my Ancient Greek hat on) That Zeus exists is a fact, not a supposition, so you'll get no argument from me.

Boy, boy, don't you know that strawman argument is illogical? :)

Your analogy (as any other analogy) is invalid, but I like the fact that you introduced Zeuss :)
There is as much proof for the existence of Zeus as there is for the existence of YHWH or the yellow-pink uniflop. (what I just did was an enumeration/example not an analogy!).

Is "proof" a scientific term? No, science is based on interpreting proof as accurately as possible, but proof is something in itself. Proof reffers to results. You do something and you get the same result over and over again.

 

[Hurkyl]

Your analogy (as any other analogy) is invalid, but I like the fact that you introduced Zeuss :)
There is as much proof for the existence of Zeus as there is for the existence of YHWH or the yellow-pink uniflop. (what I just did was an enumeration/example not an analogy!).

Is "proof" a scientific term? No, science is based on interpreting proof as accurately as possible, but proof is something in itself. Proof reffers to results. You do something and you get the same result over and over again.

It wasn't meant as an analogy. You explicitly assume that experiment is the only source of truth. (I'm surprised you don't accept reason!) And thus, your argument means absolutely nothing to someone who assumes that there are other sources of truth. The devout ancient Greek doesn't suppose that Zeus exists: it's a fact he's learned from his religous teachings.

Basically, when you start with the hypothesis that empiricism is the only source of truth, you have assumed what you're trying to prove.

Incidentally, I don't think "proof" is the word you wanted to use -- I'm used to that word specifically meaning what you do when you use reason to get evidence for something. Experiments give you (experimental) evidence.