Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams debate religion this week
Discussion
TheHeretic said:
Dawkins was 'Charles Simonyi chair of the public understanding of science'
Given that you have to accept what quite a few people are telling you, this man comes across as an arrogant, pompous prig - you'd have to say he didn't fulfill the role particularly well.He's no Johnny Ball is what I'm saying.
mattnunn said:
Given that you have to accept what quite a few people are telling you, this man comes across as an arrogant, pompous prig - you'd have to say he didn't fulfill the role particularly well.
He's no Johnny Ball is what I'm saying.
So you say. I just call that an ad hom.He's no Johnny Ball is what I'm saying.
Edited by TheHeretic on Tuesday 29th January 17:57
NinjaPower said:
Bit of a heads up for those of you that enjoy watching a good debate... This will probably be fairly epic!
Professor Richard Dawkins and the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams will 'go at it' this Thursday (the 31st) at Cambridge University to discuss whether "Religion has no place in the 21st Century".
The Cambridge Debating Society are saying it will be a highlight of their 200 year history.
For those of us who are not going to be in the 1000+ audience, it will be filmed in full and will be made available for public viewing very shortly after the event on the Cambridge Unions website.
Popcorn time for sure
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshir...
Excellent, thanks for posting this, I wouldn't have known otherwise!Professor Richard Dawkins and the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams will 'go at it' this Thursday (the 31st) at Cambridge University to discuss whether "Religion has no place in the 21st Century".
The Cambridge Debating Society are saying it will be a highlight of their 200 year history.
For those of us who are not going to be in the 1000+ audience, it will be filmed in full and will be made available for public viewing very shortly after the event on the Cambridge Unions website.
Popcorn time for sure
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshir...
ETA - I've never actually watched Dawkins debate, any suggestion, links anyone?
Edited by Firebox7 on Tuesday 29th January 18:25
Firebox7 said:
Excellent, thanks for posting this, I wouldn't have known otherwise!
ETA - I've never actually watched Dawkins debate, any suggestion, links anyone?
There are loads on YouTube, some good ones as well. There are lots with high profile adversaries (or do I mean victims) and there are many against those who come with their loins ungirded. He is no Hitchins. He is normally polite although assertive. If you compare him to, for instance, Fry then there is a lot less aggression.ETA - I've never actually watched Dawkins debate, any suggestion, links anyone?
Whilst he obviously comes over as conceited going by the replies on this thread, I've normally found him calm and considered in his replies. Occasionally he is less than considerate of the feelings of others, especially those who are, shall we say, a little slower than the rest of us.
I remember one time when he made no attempt to hide his frustration with comments from a stupid woman but I must admit I could not blame him.
I find his books a bit more 'preachy' than his TV appearances.
I don't recognise the person criticised on here but then it is a matter of opinion.
Derek Smith said:
I have to take issue with some of your points.
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.
Excellent post, I could never have articulated that as well as you just did, for a start I wouldn't have the knowledge! It's posts like this and GV's over in the science forums that keeps me coming back.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.
Firebox7 said:
Excellent post, I could never have articulated that as well as you just did, for a start I wouldn't have the knowledge! It's posts like this and GV's over in the science forums that keeps me coming back.
It can be hard to have a genuine conversation about these things at time. Very good post indeed. 
Firebox7 said:
Excellent post, I could never have articulated that as well as you just did, for a start I wouldn't have the knowledge! It's posts like this and GV's over in the science forums that keeps me coming back.
I appreciate that. Thanks.Here's one link to show how Dawkins reacts when faced with dolts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo&lis...
Mind you, the woman is particularly weird. Her Concerned Women for America is a website which is absolutely terrifying. More so than The Exorcist.
The link shows that Dawkins can keep his temper in the face of ignorance.
'I don't want respect for what I believe. I want you to respect the evidence.'
Nice one.
Derek Smith said:
I appreciate that. Thanks.
Here's one link to show how Dawkins reacts when faced with dolts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo&lis...
Mind you, the woman is particularly weird. Her Concerned Women for America is a website which is absolutely terrifying. More so than The Exorcist.
The link shows that Dawkins can keep his temper in the face of ignorance.
'I don't want respect for what I believe. I want you to respect the evidence.'
Nice one.
I think people often just see an old man, and ignore what he actually says. I think they ignore what is being said to him at the time as well. Here's one link to show how Dawkins reacts when faced with dolts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo&lis...
Mind you, the woman is particularly weird. Her Concerned Women for America is a website which is absolutely terrifying. More so than The Exorcist.
The link shows that Dawkins can keep his temper in the face of ignorance.
'I don't want respect for what I believe. I want you to respect the evidence.'
Nice one.
Derek Smith said:
There are loads on YouTube, some good ones as well. There are lots with high profile adversaries (or do I mean victims) and there are many against those who come with their loins ungirded. He is no Hitchins. He is normally polite although assertive. If you compare him to, for instance, Fry then there is a lot less aggression.
Whilst he obviously comes over as conceited going by the replies on this thread, I've normally found him calm and considered in his replies. Occasionally he is less than considerate of the feelings of others, especially those who are, shall we say, a little slower than the rest of us.
I remember one time when he made no attempt to hide his frustration with comments from a stupid woman but I must admit I could not blame him.
I find his books a bit more 'preachy' than his TV appearances.
I don't recognise the person criticised on here but then it is a matter of opinion.
Thanks. Again, an informative and considered response.Whilst he obviously comes over as conceited going by the replies on this thread, I've normally found him calm and considered in his replies. Occasionally he is less than considerate of the feelings of others, especially those who are, shall we say, a little slower than the rest of us.
I remember one time when he made no attempt to hide his frustration with comments from a stupid woman but I must admit I could not blame him.
I find his books a bit more 'preachy' than his TV appearances.
I don't recognise the person criticised on here but then it is a matter of opinion.
I hate to be a pain but could you name a couple of the high profile ones for me, I'm not good with names at the best of times and I'd have no idea who the more extremist victims (haha) are!
Also, this may sound like a stupid question but do you call yourself an Athiest? I have never believed in any sort of higher being, a view that has been reinforced throughout my life by various not so nice experiences, but have always answered with - I'm a nothing, not even an Athiest - I guess it could be called Agnostic (?) but what i meant was that i really had no time for even having a discussion about it since the subject meant mothing to me. however, in the past few years I have really started to care about the lies, deceit, behaviour and atrocities encouraged by all types of religions, especially the thought that fundamentalist / extremist "schools" are even legal - I guess this makes me an Athiest, a slightly angry one at that!
PS. I actually found Dawkins books quite hard to read, possibly for the same reason as you describe but maybe they will sit better now that my feeling are much stronger on the subject...
Cheers!
Firebox7 said:
Thanks. Again, an informative and considered response.
I hate to be a pain but could you name a couple of the high profile ones for me, I'm not good with names at the best of times and I'd have no idea who the more extremist victims (haha) are!
Also, this may sound like a stupid question but do you call yourself an Athiest? I have never believed in any sort of higher being, a view that has been reinforced throughout my life by various not so nice experiences, but have always answered with - I'm a nothing, not even an Athiest - I guess it could be called Agnostic (?) but what i meant was that i really had no time for even having a discussion about it since the subject meant mothing to me. however, in the past few years I have really started to care about the lies, deceit, behaviour and atrocities encouraged by all types of religions, especially the thought that fundamentalist / extremist "schools" are even legal - I guess this makes me an Athiest, a slightly angry one at that!
PS. I actually found Dawkins books quite hard to read, possibly for the same reason as you describe but maybe they will sit better now that my feeling are much stronger on the subject...
Cheers!
Here's one where he debates with Rowan:I hate to be a pain but could you name a couple of the high profile ones for me, I'm not good with names at the best of times and I'd have no idea who the more extremist victims (haha) are!
Also, this may sound like a stupid question but do you call yourself an Athiest? I have never believed in any sort of higher being, a view that has been reinforced throughout my life by various not so nice experiences, but have always answered with - I'm a nothing, not even an Athiest - I guess it could be called Agnostic (?) but what i meant was that i really had no time for even having a discussion about it since the subject meant mothing to me. however, in the past few years I have really started to care about the lies, deceit, behaviour and atrocities encouraged by all types of religions, especially the thought that fundamentalist / extremist "schools" are even legal - I guess this makes me an Athiest, a slightly angry one at that!
PS. I actually found Dawkins books quite hard to read, possibly for the same reason as you describe but maybe they will sit better now that my feeling are much stronger on the subject...
Cheers!
{url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac[/url]
And here he is at his patronising best, although it is funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoNqSrA7Mos
In the latter, he is preaching to the converted, something which he should condemn.
I suppose I am a conditional atheist. I don't believe in an interventionst god. But I am willing to be convinced otherwise.
I once experienced something supernatural - not religious - and it spooked me. I still don't know what to make of it some 42 years later. There is no logical explanation and I was with three others. We didn't discuss this at the time but later, when we did, our stories were all but identical. So I know I don't know everything.
TheHeretic said:
If you do not believe in any sort of supernatural god type thingy, you are an atheist. If you do you are a deist/theist.
Gnostic, and agnostic deal with truth claims.
Thanks for that, just an Athiest then, I'm not sure anyone can claim they KNOW a god doesn't exist. Although until someone shows me some proof other than a contradicting book of tales, I refuse to believe it.Gnostic, and agnostic deal with truth claims.
Firebox7 said:
Thanks for that, just an Athiest then, I'm not sure anyone can claim they KNOW a god doesn't exist. Although until someone shows me some proof other than a contradicting book of tales, I refuse to believe it.
Well, in my opinion an atheist of theist making that claim are taking an untenable position. Dawkins has his own scale for such things, being 1-7, and he puts himself at a 6.5 because you cannot be 100% certain. Derek Smith said:
Here's one where he debates with Rowan:
{url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac[/url]
And here he is at his patronising best, although it is funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoNqSrA7Mos
In the latter, he is preaching to the converted, something which he should condemn.
I suppose I am a conditional atheist. I don't believe in an interventionst god. But I am willing to be convinced otherwise.
I once experienced something supernatural - not religious - and it spooked me. I still don't know what to make of it some 42 years later. There is no logical explanation and I was with three others. We didn't discuss this at the time but later, when we did, our stories were all but identical. So I know I don't know everything.
Thanks for that, just watched the one with Wendy, interesting and frustrating in equal parts for me.... I found myself wanting him to ask her for proof of a god, although he does briefly explain later that the show was specifically about Darwinism. Off to watch some more now.{url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac[/url]
And here he is at his patronising best, although it is funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoNqSrA7Mos
In the latter, he is preaching to the converted, something which he should condemn.
I suppose I am a conditional atheist. I don't believe in an interventionst god. But I am willing to be convinced otherwise.
I once experienced something supernatural - not religious - and it spooked me. I still don't know what to make of it some 42 years later. There is no logical explanation and I was with three others. We didn't discuss this at the time but later, when we did, our stories were all but identical. So I know I don't know everything.
Would you care to elaborate on your supernatural experience, or have you on here already somewhere? I'm interested because this is also something I have never believed in. Having said that, I didn't believe in any sort of psychic capabilities until I experienced it very briefly between a friend and I about 10 years ago. Very, very weird and it's never happened since so I'm still very sceptical, but it did open mind mind slightly to the potential of the human brain / mind...
ETA - there was no setup or attempt at psychic communication in my "experience" it just happened out of the blue and lasted a matter of seconds...
Edited by Firebox7 on Tuesday 29th January 20:44
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff