- #141
Curious3141
Homework Helper
- 2,862
- 88
Has anyone mentioned the South Park take on Dawkins anticrusade taken to its (il)logical extreme?
Science damn all of you!
Science damn all of you!
Another God said: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
kant said: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.
*gasp* You mean, you can use the tenets of science to justify studying science?Another God said:One is observable and measurable. The other is a convenient fiction?
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.Hurkyl said:*gasp* You mean, you can use the tenets of science to justify studying science?
*gasp* You did it again! And here I was thinking you couldn't use empiricism to circularly justify science.Another God said: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.
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.Hurkyl said:*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.
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.navneet1990 said: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
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.navneet1990 said:ohk so he thinks these are organised religions and they are not suited for growth and all
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.navneet1990 said: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"?
Wrong. Simply wrong.navneet1990 said: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...
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.navneet1990 said:im jus saying that richard is like a kid solving sums
if they are too hard he's avoided them
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.navneet1990 said: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...
Okay, good. Now, to move onto a stickier question...Another God said: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.
Trying to use philosophy? Extra, extra, ask Feynman all about it :DHurkyl said: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?
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.navneet1990 said: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
(Putting my Ancient Greek hat on) That Zeus exists is a fact, not a supposition, so you'll get no argument from me.SF said: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.
sneez said:by the way, atheism is a belief just like any other belief. What cannt you understand about it?
Tony11235 said: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.Tony11235 said: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.
Hurkyl said:Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.
I never understood, maybe you can explain -- what is the point of recent attempts to redefine atheism to include agnosticism?Another God said: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 said:Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.
Hurkyl said:I never understood, maybe you can explain -- what is the point of recent attempts to redefine atheism to include agnosticism?
Now why do you think that?Tony11235 said: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, 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?So one might as well lean towards the likelihood non-existence.
Hurkyl said: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?
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 said:Can we not assign a probability of likelihood to proposals such as a supernatural being?Hurkyl said: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?
Hurkyl said: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.
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:Another God said:If I knew of any evidence for God, I'd believe. But there is 0, so atheism is much more reasonable.
In some areas, the progress has been significant. In other areas, I don't see much progress.0TheSwerve0 said:Do you think the progress we've made in the U.S. is pretty good or just ok?
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.PIT2 said: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'm fond of the Burning Bush, myself. =)Another God said: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.
Boy, boy, don't you know that strawman argument is illogical? :)Hurkyl said:(Putting my Ancient Greek hat on) That Zeus exists is a fact, not a supposition, so you'll get no argument from me.
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.SF said: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.