this conversation is related to a page called
Dawkins- root of all evil? [preview]
comment by kaliandsaskia Jan 14, 2006To put it bluntly The Root of all evil was a load of shit. Dawkins displayed the arrogance, pig headedness and intolerence that most scientists have with regards to religion. They seem to fill the empty space in their soul which most people fill with some form of spirituality , ranging from being agnostic to faithfully following an organised religion e.g our personal choice Christianity, with scientifc facts and patronising criticism of anyone who doesn't share their narrow minded beliefs.
We also noticed that the only religious people spoken to were religious nutcases which didn't give an accurate display of religious attitudes. As usual in scientific programmes only people who would support the presenters view or prove his point were spoken to.
Over all we were disgusted with Dawkins unashamed attempt to criticise, belittle and patronise anyone who found happiness and comfort from religion.
If it's enlightment you are looking for then try reading Richard Dawkins books.
There is no one on this Planet free from arrogance and I personally saw no more arrogance in Dawkins than in the average man.....which he is obviously not.
If fact he displayed more modesty than arrogance given his achievements so far.....and the fact that he's an Aries!
So it's back to the drawing board for you two.
Like I said though - just say "I haven't had time to catch up on what others have written, but..." or something similar. You can carry on here by all means; it's just that most people are talking in the other thread so you're more likely to get a reply. I'm pretty much done with this subject now though, after jabbering on for ages.
No doubt I'll be back into the discussion after I see the programme tonight...
Anyway , much as though I admire Dawkins , I don't need to agree with everything he might say. I've be accused of lots of things(all robustly rebutted!)but never , as yet , of sycophancy.
I would suggest that we are all at the centre of our own Universes and although there will be Universal Truth , this does not mean that all Universes are identical.
Universal Truth #47 , we need to learn how to agree to disagree.....again!
Concensus at last.
Roll on 8.00pm and more stimulating insights on the subject.
Antagonistic yet complimentary - oriental philosophy - ye cannae beat it - the yin and the yang - lightness and darkness - ye cannae have one without the other - male and female - up and down - positive and negative.
An open and shut case.
comment by naughtykkk Jan 16, 2006I really would like to know how you can justify what you said.
To put it quite bluntly, your post was incredible hyppocritical- you say Dawkins displays arrogance. SO why are you making comments like- 'this program was a load of shit' and not give good reasons for.
Your message was extremley opinionated and therefore is not particulary reasonable. I respect everyone's right to an opinion, but to make rash judgements without backing them up with sustainable fact.
#1. 'most Scientists show intolerance to religion'. Did you ever consider why? If science can PROVE the world is over 4 1/2 billion years old, and the bible says it is less than 10,000 years old, how can some religious bloke turn around and say it is 'just a theory' alongside the bible??? And, whats more, it isnt just 'religous nutcases' that belive this!!! if you call yourself a christian, you accept the bible as the word of 'god' and therefore belive in it.
Maybe scientists arn't intolerant to religion- maybe some are like me- and hate the way religion is used as some all purpose lie to control and indoctrinate people! As scientists, the world is continually updating its knowledge, (i look through encyclopedias my grandfather has as a boy, and some comments then, made by scientists, have since been proven wrong) and we accept this.
However, in the way religion continually denies evidence that is not just a theory- is proven to be the truth; I belive puts a block in the way of bringing new knowlegde and development into the world!
you also comment that religion is our own personal choice. As demonstrated on this program- LITTLE CHILDREN IN A LARGE ORGANIZED CHURCH. What chance do they have of growing up not to be christian. Its bloody indoctrination is what is is- i know people who have found faith on their own accord, and i respect them. But being 'brought up as a...' is utterly wrong, and a dispicable crime against humanity. I respect every1s right to worship whatever they want, perform ridiculous rituals on the hope of a bettter life.
comment by brucie10 Jan 16, 2006Am just reading "The case for a creator" by former atheist Lee Strobel. has anyone read it?
would be interesting if people who have answered to this thread did read this book to see what you think!
i don't believe science has proved how the universe was created yet. has Darwin been proved right? there is little consensus amongst scientists themselves.
Darwin said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" Michael Behe did that in his description of "irreducibly complex" molecular machines. check it out!
what scientists call laws are simply a provisional description of those principles by which the universe has been observed to work. They don't and can't rule out the possibility of those rules changing.
in atheism the universe just pops into being out of nothing. surely everything has a beginning and must have a cause that brings it into existence.
What if God and science co exist?
"- maybe some are like me- and hate the way religion is used as some all purpose lie to control and indoctrinate people!" - how do YOU justify this after having a go at a previous post?
Communism and fascism were anti religious and caused the two biggest conflicts in history. I think what's needed here is some proper factual arguments rather than sweeping statements that are so easy when defending something you believe in.
comment by Vahva Jan 17, 2006That wasn't a very measured response Naughtykkk!
Pot kettle black calling - rearrange as appropriate!
To address some of the comments you made:
'Most scientists show intolerance to religion' - you're making this sound like an allergy! I know plenty of religious scientists, my husband included.
Science can't undeniably prove that the earth is 4 1/2 billion years old. As you yourself said, old encyclopaedias show that some scientists have got things wrong. However, I personally don't believe that the bible's account of creation is a literal description of creation written with 21st century people in mind!!!! I am a Christian but I have a different view of interpretation of scripture. Please don't tar all Christians with the fundamentalist, reactionary, narrow-minded brush. This is like thinking all muslims want to be suicide bombers!
'Religion is an all purpose lie used to indoctrinate people' - Are people really that stupid? Well, yes, some are, but most 'religions' that do that are known as cults, major religions do not fall into this category. As Brucie pointed out, facism and communism DO fall into this category. If you asked 10 people from my church the same question, you would get 10 different answers since they are all individuals and have their own view on things. If they were indoctrinated as you suggest, they would all give exactly the same response. I am grateful that I belong to a religion that encourages enquiry and debate. The moment I stop allowing my faith to be challenged is the moment my faith dies - that is its nature!
As for bringing up children, well, I could say the same for you that NOT introducing them to the fact that they will have a choice about whether to believe in God is cruel. I know loads of people who were brought up in the church who are no longer believers. It is patronising to say 'what chance do little children have' - they have every chance as adults to say 'no, not for me'! Just as perhaps your children might say, 'no, I don't want to be an atheist!'
The thing that irritates me is that people who aren't religious assume that they are neutral in some way, that their views are neutral and therefore do not affect anyone. This is rubbish. Everybody has a world view that is demonstrated through the way they think about things, the way they live and make choices. For some, this is a religion, for others, it is a scientific worldview, or an atheistic one.
The Christian God I believe in agrees with you in that He hates false religion. In the book of James ch 1:26-27 it says:
If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
comment by CombeineHarvesterOfSorrow Jan 17, 2006Science does not hate religion. This is a fallacy designed to preserve a "seige mentality". I find this attitude shocking. Just as Dawkins was able to root out less than sterling exemplars of the religious peoples of the world, the majority of the scientific world feel broady similar toward him! He is a firebrand and a great self publicist, but he seems content to use what he has found to stir controversy of the basest kind.
Personally my own Atheism (I find this word repellent by the way. Why must I be defined by what I don't believe as opposed to what I do?) existed long beore I learned much of evolution or big bang theories etc. Religion is not an enemy of science or vice versa. The two have nothing to do with each other. This myth that science exists only to debunk religion is beneath contempt. Where the two actually rival schools of thought, there would be an element of crosssover in all their works. I haven't seen many scientists performing missionary work, nor religious figureheads involved hands on n finding a cure for cancer! Lets just try not to let one idiot's hornblowing detract from the work the scientific community has accomplished. After all, should we be saying things the religious community disagree with, I guess you have no choice but to forgive us. Well that or provide evidence.
comment by Vahva Jan 17, 2006Brucie - I think I might try and read that book, sounds good! Why don't you review it on here?! Then we can have another massive long thread discussing it!
comment by julieandandy Jan 17, 2006Arrogant, no balance, heavily edited.
I shan't watch another episode as it's terribly boring.
This could have been so good, you screwed up BBC !!
comment by tony47611 Jan 17, 2006Yes, yes, yes...
The programme was rather stimulating...Dawkins was rather aggressive, but does he have to front his opinions this way?
There are some things you cannot, CANNOT...I repeat...CANNOT prove.
Without touching the screen in front of you, can you 'prove' it's there?
Another example: 1 + 1 = 2
This is AN OBSERVABLE, AXIOMATIC FACT..."proven" by observation.
A deaf person hears a violin being plucked; without any scientific training, can he prove a sound has been produced? Indirectly perhaps, by an oscilloscope? A recording device? Just because we cant see it, doesnt mean 'it' doesnt exist.
BUT also...just because we see it, doesnt mean its ACTUALLY THERE...Hallucinations...Mirage...Trickery..
I may be typing on my keyboard, but only my touch, sight and hearing (keys being depressed) emphasises the fact the keyboard may REALLY be there. If I leave the room, will the keyboard still be there?
I visited London Eye once, it was definitely 'there' but now, I am many miles away from it, IS IT STILL 'THERE'???
Wheres the evidence? Photographs? Video? Eyewitness accounts?
To what point is EVIDENCE PROOF?
comment by brucie10 Jan 17, 2006This isn't my quote but i found it interesting. what do others think?
"Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method that mankind can use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. It is a search for knowledge through observation and guesswork. Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic and imagination. However, a Christian’s belief in science should never be like our belief in God. A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect, and which is not..........Much of science supports the existence and work of God. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” As modern science discovers more about the universe, we find more evidence of Creation. The amazing complexity and replication of DNA, the intricate and interlocking laws of physics, and the absolute harmony of conditions and chemistry here on earth all serve to support the message of the Bible. A Christian should embrace science that seeks the truth, but reject the “priests of science” who put human knowledge above God".
comment by Mister Savage Jan 17, 2006I would disagree that science is showing evidence of creation. Of course, I could eventually be wrong, that's the fun bit, but personally I feel like Christianity should use science to determine what parts of the bible have been written by man, or intended only as metaphor. Religion and science could quite happily co-exist - but putting a religious agenda onto scientific research is a sure route to disappointment.
Watch artist interviews and see images from British exhibitions.