Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams debate religion this week
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What makes you think he would turn into a horrible person if he woke up tomorrow and had lost his faith?
You might as well say the nicest person I know is left handed/drivers a Ford Focus/ has a beard/supports Rochdale. What's the link?
You have managed to both get my point and slightly miss my point. You might as well say the nicest person I know is left handed/drivers a Ford Focus/ has a beard/supports Rochdale. What's the link?
There is no link between religion and social ability but if everyone was Mormon and behaved like her then people would be much nicer to each other and at the same time completely wrong about most Science things.
The not caring what she believes because she is not a bellend about it part of the statement Ozzie disagreed with.
omgus said:
There is no link between religion and social ability but if everyone was Mormon and behaved like her then people would be much nicer to each other and at the same time completely wrong about most Science things.
You just mean "if everyone behaved like her", her being a Mormon doesn't automatically make her a better person, and one doesn't have to be religious in order to play nicely with others.omgus said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What makes you think he would turn into a horrible person if he woke up tomorrow and had lost his faith?
You might as well say the nicest person I know is left handed/drivers a Ford Focus/ has a beard/supports Rochdale. What's the link?
You have managed to both get my point and slightly miss my point. You might as well say the nicest person I know is left handed/drivers a Ford Focus/ has a beard/supports Rochdale. What's the link?
There is no link between religion and social ability but if everyone was Mormon and behaved like her then people would be much nicer to each other and at the same time completely wrong about most Science things.
The not caring what she believes because she is not a bellend about it part of the statement Ozzie disagreed with.
By the way, the nicest person I know has Frosties.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm sure there are nice and nasty mormans, muslims, jews, christians and atheists. I just don't see how saying "the nicest person I know is a morman" advances the debate at all. Why single out her religion and link it to her charming personality. You might as well single out her favourite breakfast cereal.
By the way, the nicest person I know has Frosties.
Yeah, it's like saying the cleverest person I know is a scientist, or the biggest cock I know is an athiest. By the way, the nicest person I know has Frosties.
Because as all atheists will tell you peoples propertys and attributes are completely decoupled from their thought processes, peoples behaviours aren't governed by what they think but rather by some ethereal processes happening at a neuralogical level, but don't ask why - because that's not important.
SWoll said:
mattnunn said:
But
But Dawkins isn't. (clever enough to trot out the tired old canards atheists usually rely on that is)
Can I put this forward as the most ironic post in the history of PH.But Dawkins isn't. (clever enough to trot out the tired old canards atheists usually rely on that is)
Tired old atheist canards.
Strange way of describing provable scientific facts...
Please, tell us more.
Science in its rawest form has no inherent sense of morality, and in fact unchecked science can be extremely dangerous (anything involving nuclear power, biological agents and eugenics, for example). I find Dawkins absolutely infuriating, simply because he does what all fundamentalists do and deals only in absolutes, using only his eloquence and forcefulness to gloss over the gaping holes in his arguments.
He regularly asserts that humanity would have developed a natural moral code regardless, but he has little to no evidence to illustrate this beyond a few tiny isolated examples in precapitalist societies. To put it bluntly, religion was a way of persuading people not to do bad things to each other, using the fear of God in order to do so. It forms the basis of most criminal legal systems throughout the world, and the fact that the letter of the law applies to people of all faiths in the developed world would suggest to me that religion has something 'right' at its heart, the idea of a moral code for living. Also, as people agreed with these codes, the basis for societies and ultimately nation-states formed.
However, if we just lived in accordance with scientific principle, seeing everything as an experiment that needed carrying out to see what happened regardless of impact on human life, and saw ourselves as nothing more than animals who resort to simple survival materialism at the earliest provocation, I suspect we'd actually have ended up more savage than Dawkins thinks.
As an atheist myself, I really do think atheism needs a better voice than Dawkins. Whenever he gets going I get the fleeting feeling I know what it's like to be a moderate Muslim being spoken for by Abu Hamza.
I don't understand where this perception of Dawkins as some sort of militant, fundamentalist is coming from. Whenever I have watched his TV shows or seen him interviewed, he has been a paragon of restraint, reasonability and rationality.
He respects Rowan Williams, and has said so several times.
He respects Rowan Williams, and has said so several times.
Twincam16 said:
He regularly asserts that humanity would have developed a natural moral code regardless, but he has little to no evidence to illustrate this beyond a few tiny isolated examples in precapitalist societies. To put it bluntly, religion was a way of persuading people not to do bad things to each other, using the fear of God in order to do so.
What nonsense. People are moral all the time regardless of religion, even people who claim to be religious. Look at the outlawing of slavery in the religious USA, despite their predominant belief in Christianity saying it's ok to have slaves. Was religion necessary for them to form the moral belief that slavery is bad, or was it despite religion?Phil1 said:
What nonsense. People are moral all the time regardless of religion, even people who claim to be religious. Look at the outlawing of slavery in the religious USA, despite their predominant belief in Christianity saying it's ok to have slaves. Was religion necessary for them to form the moral belief that slavery is bad, or was it despite religion?
There's loads of stuff in the Bible that is considered immoral today. So I agree, the opposite is true, people are moral *in spite* of religion.Phil1 said:
Twincam16 said:
He regularly asserts that humanity would have developed a natural moral code regardless, but he has little to no evidence to illustrate this beyond a few tiny isolated examples in precapitalist societies. To put it bluntly, religion was a way of persuading people not to do bad things to each other, using the fear of God in order to do so.
What nonsense. People are moral all the time regardless of religion, even people who claim to be religious. Look at the outlawing of slavery in the religious USA, despite their predominant belief in Christianity saying it's ok to have slaves. Was religion necessary for them to form the moral belief that slavery is bad, or was it despite religion?And you are using this as your devasting riposte in asserting natural human morals???
Christ...and I thought I lead the dont-give-a-f
k-about-morals team on ph! Son, you outdo me by a long shot! Im going to recommend the next time you join a debate like this you dont use that one as an example.DJRC said:
Phil1 said:
Twincam16 said:
He regularly asserts that humanity would have developed a natural moral code regardless, but he has little to no evidence to illustrate this beyond a few tiny isolated examples in precapitalist societies. To put it bluntly, religion was a way of persuading people not to do bad things to each other, using the fear of God in order to do so.
What nonsense. People are moral all the time regardless of religion, even people who claim to be religious. Look at the outlawing of slavery in the religious USA, despite their predominant belief in Christianity saying it's ok to have slaves. Was religion necessary for them to form the moral belief that slavery is bad, or was it despite religion?Dude, they had something called the Civil War over it. The "good guys" burnt Atlanta to the ground and to hell and high water with everybody in the place.
And you are using this as your devasting riposte in asserting natural human morals???
Christ...and I thought I lead the dont-give-a-f
k-about-morals team on ph! Son, you outdo me by a long shot! Im going to recommend the next time you join a debate like this you dont use that one as an example.DJRC said:
Dude, they had something called the Civil War over it. The "good guys" burnt Atlanta to the ground and to hell and high water with everybody in the place.
And you are using this as your devasting riposte in asserting natural human morals???
Christ...and I thought I lead the dont-give-a-fk-about-morals team on ph! Son, you outdo me by a long shot! Im going to recommend the next time you join a debate like this you dont use that one as an example.
Get a grip. You're claiming a war target is immoral, and that if it was an example of immorality that it means that without religion as Twincam16 asserts, the non-religious can never, ever, ever be moral.And you are using this as your devasting riposte in asserting natural human morals???
Christ...and I thought I lead the dont-give-a-f
k-about-morals team on ph! Son, you outdo me by a long shot! Im going to recommend the next time you join a debate like this you dont use that one as an example.Twincam16 said:
But that's not what the debate's about. You can argue various facts of science and history and the nature of such fields means that eventually the truth will out. But this debate is about whether religion has a place in today's society, and I suspect that Rowan Williams will have some pretty strong arguments to make about spiritual wellbeing being more important than the dog-eat-dog survivalism much of nature exhibits when left to its own devices, and the richness of cultural heritage, and the importance of religious analogy in explaining morality (and the basis of nearly all our laws) to people with no concept or grasp of science or law.
Science in its rawest form has no inherent sense of morality, and in fact unchecked science can be extremely dangerous (anything involving nuclear power, biological agents and eugenics, for example). I find Dawkins absolutely infuriating, simply because he does what all fundamentalists do and deals only in absolutes, using only his eloquence and forcefulness to gloss over the gaping holes in his arguments.
He regularly asserts that humanity would have developed a natural moral code regardless, but he has little to no evidence to illustrate this beyond a few tiny isolated examples in precapitalist societies. To put it bluntly, religion was a way of persuading people not to do bad things to each other, using the fear of God in order to do so. It forms the basis of most criminal legal systems throughout the world, and the fact that the letter of the law applies to people of all faiths in the developed world would suggest to me that religion has something 'right' at its heart, the idea of a moral code for living. Also, as people agreed with these codes, the basis for societies and ultimately nation-states formed.
However, if we just lived in accordance with scientific principle, seeing everything as an experiment that needed carrying out to see what happened regardless of impact on human life, and saw ourselves as nothing more than animals who resort to simple survival materialism at the earliest provocation, I suspect we'd actually have ended up more savage than Dawkins thinks.
As an atheist myself, I really do think atheism needs a better voice than Dawkins. Whenever he gets going I get the fleeting feeling I know what it's like to be a moderate Muslim being spoken for by Abu Hamza.
I have to take issue with some of your points.Science in its rawest form has no inherent sense of morality, and in fact unchecked science can be extremely dangerous (anything involving nuclear power, biological agents and eugenics, for example). I find Dawkins absolutely infuriating, simply because he does what all fundamentalists do and deals only in absolutes, using only his eloquence and forcefulness to gloss over the gaping holes in his arguments.
He regularly asserts that humanity would have developed a natural moral code regardless, but he has little to no evidence to illustrate this beyond a few tiny isolated examples in precapitalist societies. To put it bluntly, religion was a way of persuading people not to do bad things to each other, using the fear of God in order to do so. It forms the basis of most criminal legal systems throughout the world, and the fact that the letter of the law applies to people of all faiths in the developed world would suggest to me that religion has something 'right' at its heart, the idea of a moral code for living. Also, as people agreed with these codes, the basis for societies and ultimately nation-states formed.
However, if we just lived in accordance with scientific principle, seeing everything as an experiment that needed carrying out to see what happened regardless of impact on human life, and saw ourselves as nothing more than animals who resort to simple survival materialism at the earliest provocation, I suspect we'd actually have ended up more savage than Dawkins thinks.
As an atheist myself, I really do think atheism needs a better voice than Dawkins. Whenever he gets going I get the fleeting feeling I know what it's like to be a moderate Muslim being spoken for by Abu Hamza.
The debate is indeed about whether religion has a place in today's society.
You seem to be suggesting that religion equals spiritual wellbeing. I'd suggest exactly the opposite. Until you have been brought up amongst imposed guilt that is an essential product of catholicism you can't appreciate just how far from wellbeing religion can push you. Science doesn't only deal in absolutes. That's what religions do. This is bad, this is not bad is what they do. Science does not do this.
Science explains, it does not put forward a theory of how one should lead one's life. Dog eat dog is a reality of life. Science doesn't put this forward as preferable. So science has no concept of morality.
However, nor do religions. Let me stick to catholicism, something I know about. It assists in the spread of AIDS and other diseases in Africa. It states that condoms are evil - this despite them not being mentioned in their bible - and sticks to this regardless of the outcome. Certain religious types also tell lies about condoms.
You suggest that there is no evidence to support the fact that mankind will produce a moral code. This is wrong. There were punishments, norms, codes of conduct before christianity was imposed on this country as a political move. There is nothing to suggest that these codes were a product of their gods. Just the reverse in fact.
You say that moral codes are based on religion. Possibly. However, they have moved on massively since to the extent that there is little
that is the same. One only has to look at the way the catholic church dealt with child abuse in its own institution. Can anyone doubt that the method they chose was to limit damage to it?
I know of no one who feels that the church did the moral thing.
Look at the way homosexuals are treated by the church, this despite that, according to reports, the percentage of gay clergy is greater than that in the population as a whole.
Look at the way religion treats females. I could go back from recent history to show the catholic and protestent vilification of women over centuries.
Religion is not, as you suggest, the way of persuading people not to do bad things to each other. I would suggest that it is almost precisely the opposite. One could go back into history, to the early crusades, where the western catholic church ordered its followers to go to the middle east and slaughter those followers of the eastern catholic church. The then pope praised one of its soldiers after he reported that he waded thigh deep amongst those christians he had slaughtered who had made the mistake of seeking shelter in a church.
And one could mention more recent, religion inspired atrocities as well. I'm not suggesting that these would not have happened had religion not existed, but I am saying it would be no worse because religion makes no difference except in the severity.
Religion made pretty buildings, that's for sure. And so they should given how much money they drained from their congregations to pay for them. But if you want to see some really attractive constructs, go to the weald and downland museum.
Religion is, by its nature, divisive. Jews are the chosen people. Then we get a Jew, whose intent was to improve his own religion, saying that you can't get to heaven except by following him. Everyone else is wrong.
Dawkins may irritate you. I think his intent is to get you thinking. If so then in that he is the antithesis of religion.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dawkins was named by Time magazine ( I think it was Time) as number 3 in the world's top 20 intellects. Whether you like him or not, he's not exactly an idiot himself.
Not sure Time magazine understand the contradiction of naming someone who likes to argue about religion as one of the top twenty intellects of our time. Alex said:
julian64 said:
Not sure Time magazine understand the contradiction of naming someone who likes to argue about religion as one of the top twenty intellects of our time.
How about someone who has written some of the defining popular science books of our time?His books are something other, as well as his program's, and debates. He has no issue with people who want to believe what they will, but when it invades the lives of others he will voice his opinion, and quite rightly. I fail to see why this is a bad thing? Is it better to keep quiet about things you find detrimental to humanity, or speak your mind? This would include his own opinions, as well as those of whom he is set against. Dawkins is very easy to avoid, as are Harris, Dennet, etc. the not so easy to avoid folks are the problem, IMHO.
DJRC said:
Sorry...the Pope and by extension his wealth. Specifically the Pope's wealth in England via all the assets the Catholic Church in England controlled. The CoE was invented as little more than an asset stripping job under the convenient guise of being on nodding terms with the Diet of Worms. All that "Defender of the Faith" stuff which the Monarch still has as part of its job title and we keep being told is an important part of the Crown mixed with the CoE was actually a title conferred on fat Henry by the Pope anyway. He attacked ML over his original 95 thesis wacked on Wittenburg's Church door in 1517 (if Im a yr out sue me and lets be honest you had to wiki/google it first anyway so naff off). Henry's got a twitchy cock though and wants to get down a jiggy which throws a few spanners in the workings of European royal diplomacy, which never really bothered fat Harry too much as he basically got off on pissing Charles and Francis off in Spain and France anway. This time though he is giving the Pope right arse ache doing all this. ML and the diet of worms is giving the Pope serious arse ache and its all a wonderfully convenient smoke screen for Henry to think "fk it" and pull one of Britain's first "Go big or go home" moves on Europe. So he puts the kaibosh down on anything Popey in England, nicks anything of value the Church has he can get his hands on, tells ML, Calvin, Knox and the boys "Hell yeah chaps, Im down with you on all this Prostitution religion of yours...", "No your Majesty, our new religion is called Protestant religion because we are protesting", "...whatever Luthar dude, Protestent, Prostitute, its all gravy baby to me, we got your back bro!" Bobs your uncle, the English Reformation is born, Henry fks off the entire of Europe, nicks the dosh, divorces the bird, etc, etc.
I wish you were my history teacher at school...k it" and pull one of Britain's first "Go big or go home" moves on Europe. So he puts the kaibosh down on anything Popey in England, nicks anything of value the Church has he can get his hands on, tells ML, Calvin, Knox and the boys "Hell yeah chaps, Im down with you on all this Prostitution religion of yours...", "No your Majesty, our new religion is called Protestant religion because we are protesting", "...whatever Luthar dude, Protestent, Prostitute, its all gravy baby to me, we got your back bro!" Bobs your uncle, the English Reformation is born, Henry fks off the entire of Europe, nicks the dosh, divorces the bird, etc, etc. "Giving the pope right arse ache"
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff