This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

Jump to new

Could I ammend that and say it makes everyones lives better?

I still have problems with accepting that religous belief is a bad thing.

I keep remembering back to a psychology/organizational behaviour class I took years ago ( I took it because it was a gauranteed pass you basically just had to turn up)
Anyway one of the things they suggested is that "leaders" by their own nature are just the wrong people to be leading...I can't remember all their reasons but it was somthing to do with them been driven for power and fame, and that these characteristics really made them unsuitable for leadership...conversely the people with the best attributes for leadership usually didn't have these characteristicsbut because they don't have these drives never become leaders. ( I might look it up because its an interesting idea)
My point is maybe its the leaders of these Religions that are to blame rather than the Religion itself?
 
kgee said:
My point is maybe its the leaders of these Religions that are to blame rather than the Religion itself?
Click to expand...
Interesting point. There are examples of cults developing without the oringinal leader, Christianity being a prime example, but it would have needed someone charismatic to keep the ball running. Peter did a pretty good job, and then Constantine helped a tad. Not sure if Buddhism would have worked without Siddharta, but maybe perhaps some key deciples pushed the barrow a bit. I'm not sure if Islam would have got off the ground without Khadijah, his first wife, who along with an uncle, convinced him that voices in his head were from Gabriel....

Perhaps all cults need a good idea and a good representative...
 
kgee said:
Could I ammend that and say it makes everyones lives better?

I still have problems with accepting that religous belief is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Yep, but I'm not sure if any religion has made 'everyones' life better.

Religion is fantastic for a few and saved many people's lives. I think my rebuttle to this is, why religion? Why not come up with another concept of the best way to live that is not based on myth, power, greed, death, damnation, fire and brimstone, etc etc. There might be a better way. Let's not accept old myth fantacy, that is quite obviously seriously flawed, as the foundation of ethics and morality.
 

I'm unsure wether believing people are basically nice is selfishly motivated.....you either believe it or you don't ...and its incidental to the way it makes you feel?

I also hope there is a better way than religion ( as it now stands and as a concept for the way to live your life) Yet believe religion could well be a stepping stone to somthing better surely we could take somthing positive away from it.
 
To add to the great things that religion has done:


I'm not sure if Monty Python is compensation...
 

How are you defining "better"? "Better" compared to what? In a strictly materialist universe "better", "ethics" and "morality" can only be grounded in trying to balance optimal happiness for the individual with evolutionary success for the species - and this is not rock, but quicksand. And thus it can be easily argued that it is better for the evolutionary success of the group to eradicate some minorities or individuals from the genetic pool. This is the stumbling stone for materialist ethics - there is no evolutionary reason to help the poor, genetically defective or disenfranchised. The materialists who abhor the logical conclusion and implications try and fudge it over with appeals to religious concepts of good and better and moral all cloaked in materialist verbage in an attempt to hide the fact that without a transcendant ground on which to base morals, then good/evil can only ever be subjective and held hostage by those in power who legislate the "good" and punish the "evil".

So if you want to be a materialist stop trying to co-opt religious/transcendant concepts. Instead form your own vocabulary and be honest with the implications of your worldview.
 
'Better' on a universal non materialistic scale, for a start.
Ethics and morality that are better for the greatest number for the greatest good.
Yes, we are diluting the gene pool.
I'll happily take rational objective analysis over transcendant dogma to base morals.
I'm a materialist living in a materialist world. Rejecting that is irrational, but recognising it is a start.
Co-opting transcendant concepts? Like what?
My own vocab? shagagafatsteigngt! Get that?

I'm confused
 
kennas said:
'Better' on a universal non materialistic scale, for a start.
Click to expand...
Which is it? Materialist or non-materialist?

Ethics and morality that are better for the greatest number for the greatest good.
Click to expand...
Define good.

Yes, we are diluting the gene pool.
Click to expand...
Thanks for being honest. So would you support purifying the gene pool by removing "inferior" genetics? If so, who gets to decide what is "inferior" and on what basis?

I'll happily take rational objective analysis over transcendant dogma to base morals.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as rational objective analysis of morals. Any starting point is subjective based on an individual's perception of what is good/desirable for the species/individual.

I'm a materialist living in a materialist world. Rejecting that is irrational, but recognising it is a start.
Click to expand...
I would recommend some more thinking on the subject of 'warrant' before throwing around "irrational".

Co-opting transcendant concepts? Like what?
Click to expand...
Better/morality/right/wrong.

My own vocab? shagagafatsteigngt! Get that?
Click to expand...
Well, it makes as much sense as hearing materialists talk about good/better/morals without accepting that a materialist view of those concepts are necessarily subjective.
 
Because something is seen not to be optimal

It does not follow that things would be better without it

We live in a complex world with many unknowns

Maybe religion evolved because it offers unknown ( at this stage ) advantages. That we can not do with out. Or do without at out at peril

To say religion causes this or this . So we are better without it...
Is a poor intellectual argument...



Our genes are very old... maybe they need religion...religion is very old and of all times and all places ... Often what is myth is only seen in hindsight.. The myths we are submerged in are invisible.. It is just "how the world is"..

What is needed is more consciousness,,, That realizes the existence of uncertainties and unknowns... ( By definition irrational..)

But to say something is dispensable...When it has been part of the human condition from day one.. is fraught... A Human world without..might be uninhabitable ..a real religion should protect against cults,, esp cults of individuals ( Hitler Mao Stalin... Nth Korea etc )

motorway
 
Was it Dostoevskty who said that without God man would kill each other down to the last individual.
I do not take this literally,but to mean the moral code or knowledge of right from wrong that we get from religion...not necessarily the threat of eternal retribution.
A friend of mine recently used the argument ,for instance ,that the Palestinian /Israeli conflict was the result of religion...I meekly suggested it was over land...at least it stopped a dead-end conversation.
I believe that the inherent or latent greed in nearly all of us is a stronger force than the influence of God.This needs to be tempered by whatever means,religious or other.
 
after this we can have a Philosophy thread

and then one where people can "go on the warpath" lol

Here's an urgent one for you blokes to sort out .
re the depth of the gene pool ....
Dawkins is right when he says that selfish behaviour of men will land the entire planet and all other species in trouble.

the depth of the gene pool for almost all other species is rapidly getting shallower.


As for "nice", "nasty" or simply "opportunistic" behaviour....
Recently there was a show on TV - experiments where chimps could cooperate (to get a banana) or not. in fact the first chimp was in control. He could either open a cage to permit his friend to help - or not - as it suited him ( depending on the problem to be solved)

FOR THE 2 CHIMPS used .. ( and their prison environment etc) ..

When they needed to cooperate ( eg 2 ropes, one to each end of a board with bananas on it ) - he would let his "friend" in to help - and they would then cooperate... and share.

However - When the first one could get the bananas himself ( eg the rope tied to the middle of the board) then he didnt bother to seek assistance - and didn't share.

But man is still leading on the selfish stakes....

 
This is going off topic, but anyway.

MS+Tradesim said:
Which is it? Materialist or non-materialist?
Click to expand...

I'm a materialist so I fit in, trying not to be where I can. It would be better if we weren't but humans always will be. It's part of the self esteem - self actualisation paradigm. Hardly anyone can escape it.

Define good.
Click to expand...
There's books written on this, and my summary is that it's what is the greatest good for the greatest number, which I stated above. It's subjective on an individual scale, but when you put that on a social/global scale you get the picture. Just need to have the intelliect to imagine it. I recommend you read AC Graying, 'What is Good?' for a start. Of course, it's a Western view, so you may have to read a bit more.

Thanks for being honest. So would you support purifying the gene pool by removing "inferior" genetics? If so, who gets to decide what is "inferior" and on what basis?
Click to expand...
Too big a subject to cover here, but we won't change too much due to religious morals. I don't think the Nazi's have the right idea either.

There is no such thing as rational objective analysis of morals. Any starting point is subjective based on an individual's perception of what is good/desirable for the species/individual.
Click to expand...
This is an entire field in philosophy. Again, greatest good for greatest number. Maybe one day we can DNA test for 'morals'.

I would recommend some more thinking on the subject of 'warrant' before throwing around "irrational".
Click to expand...
What's warrant? Like 'Warrant Officer', or something? Found this on warrant which is interesting. So, you're being critial because I've used the word irrational? It's subjective, but not like what my favourite icecream is. I think you're missing that.

Well, it makes as much sense as hearing materialists talk about good/better/morals without accepting that a materialist view of those concepts are necessarily subjective.
Click to expand...
So, you musn't be able to have any opinion at all.....


I'm a materialist to fit into society, but I believe I'm objective enough to make comment on what's moral etc. You don't know me well enough I think. Maybe we should catch up for a glass of iced tea?


I'm not sure if you're defending religion as 'good' here, or just attacking me?
 
*rant on*Philosophy is related as Dawkins attempts to answer philosophical questions with science, and as both methodology and interpretation of scientific theory and application is a priori philosophical then the divergence in discussion is relevant.

Nevertherless my area of interest is epistemology, not biology, so back to the topic of Dawkins and I, for one, will probably not intervene. Still, it would be nice to see materialists do more thinking about prior issues such as philosophy and epistemology before spouting off so-called scientific objections to religion (of whatever form) which often reduce to rather ill-thought through philosophical objections. Philosophy is a pre-cursor and foundation for science, not an irrelevant pre-scientific field. *rant off*

Out.
 
kennas said:
So, you musn't be able to have any opinion at all.....
Click to expand...
Not at all. I simply recognise that my opinion is subjective. I do not attempt to ascribe rational/irrational to others opinons merely because I lack some insight to understand why someone believes what they do. In other words I do not know if another is warranted in their belief (of whatever) or not irrespective of my own view of that belief. To claim objectivity is to ultimately claim omniscience. It cannot be otherwise. If one is not omniscient then it is always possible that a defeator for a belief lies in knowledge as of yet unknown. That does not mean I do not form beliefs or hold opinions. It simply means it is better to hold a well-thought-through paradigm and remain intellectually humble (a quality Dawkins lacks).

You don't know me well enough I think. Maybe we should catch up for a glass of iced tea?
Click to expand...
Maybe.

I'm not sure if you're defending religion as 'good' here, or just attacking me?
Click to expand...
I am sorry if you feel attacked. That is not my intention so I apologise for that. My intention is to point out that there is no such thing as true objectivity and forward movement is easier where people accept their subjectivity and remain open to the possibility that the *other* side is right and they are wrong. That works both ways. I accept a God. But I also remain open to the very real possibility that I am wrong, because I am not omniscient and I have been wrong before.

Dawkins is a zealot and is every bit as rabid an evangelist for his view as those he disparages. EDIT: There is the possibility he is right but he's no more justified in his approach then religionists (be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu. whatever) were in evangelising at the tip of the sword.
 
MS+Tradesim said:
Not at all. I simply recognise that my opinion is subjective.
Click to expand...
Some are more objective than others, which I think you miss.

Dawkins is a zealot and is every bit as rabid an evangelist for his view as those he disparages.
Click to expand...
One the scale of things, I count Dawkins to be more objective and rational than most religious people. While his is passionate, he can be argued with.
 
kennas said:
Some are more objective than others, which I think you miss.
Click to expand...

No, I do not miss that and as you don't know me it would be unwise to claim knowledge as to what I may or may not know or miss. An internet forum will never cover all nuances of a discussion and is largely sound-bites.

One the scale of things, I count Dawkins to be more objective and rational than most religious people. While his is passionate, he can be argued with.
Click to expand...

How do you know that your perception of him being "more objective and rational than most religious people" is not biased by the fact he makes statements that you agree with and like? Agreement and likemindedness are not evidence of rationality or objectivity. I ask not because I am stating you are wrong but because bias and prejudice against "them" (the other side) is a very blinding quality. Odd how intellectual pride and rudeness can be excused as "passionate" in Dawkins but I wonder what comment you would attribute to a religionist with the same qualities. Would you call them blind? A bigot?
 


Hi folks,

Let's employ the KISS (Keep It Simple Sunshine) principle in this thread,
just for a short while .....

..... there's one issue, that's a common denominator, between ALL humans
and that is facing our own mortality. No matter how influential, how rich,
how intelligent, how materialistic we may be, EVERYBODY will go out of
this world, just as we came in ... with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in a material
sense ... and that applies to Dawkins, as well as you and me, too ... !~!

With that in mind, our own journey through life culminates in a HUGE
question mark, unless we have some belief in God (you choose which one),
which may give us some eschatalogical insight, into what lies beyond
death for every and each one of us.

If our lifetime means nothing more, than a brief sojourn on earth, by
a sophisticated, but sinful animal, then Dawkins spiel may satisfy his
supporters and you, too.

However, pastoral carers and counsellors will testify, that people facing
their own mortality, will often abandon past habits and come to realize
the value of having a supportive belief system in place ..... this is
especially so, as death becomes imminent .....

..... to bring peace in their own minds, on this earth, their reasoning
at this point may be ... to ensure everlasting life, beyond death .....

From a Christian standpoint ... confessing a genuine belief in Christ
and His forgiveness of our worldly sins, seems like a very cheap
insurance policy to ensure everlasting life beyond death and
PEACE of MIND, whilst still here on earth.

Without any belief system in place, Dawkins and many like him,
will face death in a very confused state of mind and asking:

What was this life all about and what's next for me ... ???

..... and these are questions, that we ALL must face, eventually ... !~!

May God's Grace and blessings rain down upon you, always .....

happy days

paul

P.S. ..... are you ready to face your own mortality ... ???



=====
 
MS+Tradesim said:
No, I do not miss that and as you don't know me it would be unwise to claim knowledge as to what I may or may not know or miss. An internet forum will never cover all nuances of a discussion and is largely sound-bites.
Click to expand...
Yep, you're right, but my point is that you claim 'objectivity' to be a single standard. I say some can be more objective than others. That was my point.

Would you call them blind? A bigot
Click to expand...
I am saying that religious people, who have faith/belief in a set of principles, or morals, based on myth, legend, superstition, and fairy tales, to be foolish. At least. I am not talking just about whatever religion you follow, but ALL superstitious belief in extraterestials and the like.

In the least, religion to me is a diversion from reality. Wasted time, effort and resources. Whether it's healthy or not is up to the individual, but to me it is not, for the reasons mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...