Interesting documentary on C4: The Root of All Evil?
- Thread starter redstar
- Start date
icantbelieve
Registered User
- Messages
- 131
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
I wouldn't read a lot into this, I reckon there would have been as many wars, atrocities etc whether religion existed or not and in a lot of cases religion was a useful subterfuge for economic reasons or just simple hate.
I wouldn't read a lot into this, I reckon there would have been as many wars, atrocities etc whether religion existed or not and in a lot of cases religion was a useful subterfuge for economic reasons or just simple hate.
icantbelieve
Registered User
- Messages
- 131
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
Clubman, I know you don't mean that I can't hold the view that man would've caused as much harm to man with or without religion until I've seen a C4 program. I'm not saying the program couldn't be interesting just that I thinks its a nice box to put things into when things aren't that tidy.
Clubman, I know you don't mean that I can't hold the view that man would've caused as much harm to man with or without religion until I've seen a C4 program. I'm not saying the program couldn't be interesting just that I thinks its a nice box to put things into when things aren't that tidy.
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
Speaking as a fellow non-believer (along with Richard Dawkins) I agree with icantbelieve that religion was just another way of defining tribal or cultural differences when wars were being fought in the past. People fight over access to and control of resources and power, and that’s about it. There are exceptions but in the context of the last 1000 or so years there’s not many.
I don’t accept Dawkins assertion that faith and science are mutually exclusive, after all Albert Einstein had strong religious beliefs.
I do think that religion has slowed the acceptance of reason and logic. The 17th and 18th century philosophers who separated religion and science (people like Descartes and Hume) were, in my opinion, more important that the scientists that they followed (Newton etc). They provided a context for people to question without the fear of being hauled up in front of a religious court and paved the way for the great discoveries that followed. After them science stood on it’s own two feet, no longer hamstrung by the Book of genesis.
It frightens me that many who should know better are turning their backs on all that has been achieved. I find it incredible that the president of the USA doesn’t accept natural selection as a fact when even Pope John Paul the second accepted that it was “more than just a theory”. Thomas Jefferson was a more advanced thinker that George Bush and would have laughed at many of Bush’s beliefs as backward and simplistic. Why has the most powerful country in the world moved backward in respect to the leader they choose in the last 200 years? For me the answer is unenlightened fundamentalist religion, and in my opinion that’s the dangerous kind.
Speaking as a fellow non-believer (along with Richard Dawkins) I agree with icantbelieve that religion was just another way of defining tribal or cultural differences when wars were being fought in the past. People fight over access to and control of resources and power, and that’s about it. There are exceptions but in the context of the last 1000 or so years there’s not many.
I don’t accept Dawkins assertion that faith and science are mutually exclusive, after all Albert Einstein had strong religious beliefs.
I do think that religion has slowed the acceptance of reason and logic. The 17th and 18th century philosophers who separated religion and science (people like Descartes and Hume) were, in my opinion, more important that the scientists that they followed (Newton etc). They provided a context for people to question without the fear of being hauled up in front of a religious court and paved the way for the great discoveries that followed. After them science stood on it’s own two feet, no longer hamstrung by the Book of genesis.
It frightens me that many who should know better are turning their backs on all that has been achieved. I find it incredible that the president of the USA doesn’t accept natural selection as a fact when even Pope John Paul the second accepted that it was “more than just a theory”. Thomas Jefferson was a more advanced thinker that George Bush and would have laughed at many of Bush’s beliefs as backward and simplistic. Why has the most powerful country in the world moved backward in respect to the leader they choose in the last 200 years? For me the answer is unenlightened fundamentalist religion, and in my opinion that’s the dangerous kind.
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
Blind faith (a form of "non thinking" according to Dawkins) and scientific/fact based thinking based on evidence and experimentation are obviously mutually exclusive regardless of the fact that some scientists may believe in God. Betrand Russell's "celestial teapot atheist" parable illustrated the principle well I thought. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God but that does not automatically mean that we should necessarily believe in every mystical/spiritual/metaphysical being cooked up by different societies.Purple said:
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
I don’t accept that as an absolute. I don’t believe in God but I wouldn’t presume to know the mind set of every non-atheist scientist. People believe because they choose to believe. It does not preclude the ability for rational and logical thought in a secular scientific environment. While I enjoyed the programme and am in broad agreement with Dawkins I thought that he was quite arrogant in the way he painted everyone with religious beliefs as unthinking, as if it supposed irrationality in all aspects of their lives. It was all too black and white for me.
icantbelieve
Registered User
- Messages
- 131
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
Plus not everyone who believes in God does so on "blind" faith. Applying logic and reason easily allows plenty of people, for whom the existence of a world full of strange and wonderful things as well as the multitude of daily events that science has no explanation for, to believe in a God.
Plus not everyone who believes in God does so on "blind" faith. Applying logic and reason easily allows plenty of people, for whom the existence of a world full of strange and wonderful things as well as the multitude of daily events that science has no explanation for, to believe in a God.
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
Well you alluded to Einstein in the first place - I was just responding to that point. It doesn't require one to presume to know the mindset of another to attribute their belief in God or any other mystical entity illogical thinking. Even the Catholic Church concedes this fact by describing many of its tenets of belief as mysteries not to be explained but to be accepted. All other religions require such a suspentions of logical/critical faculties too.Purple said:
Yes - but not, de facto, on the basis of any rational thoughts. Belief in God requires one to set aside rational thought. That is the point of the programme.
I agree that he pulls no punches, can be challenging to the point of arrogance and is pretty firm in his views. However regardless of his personality and approach I totally agree with him on the main thrust. I don't however believe that religion alone is the root of all evil as suggested by the programme title and some of the content. I do agree that the logical extension of blind faith is extremist views (after all each individual believes that his/her religious beliefs are right and his/her God is supreme) but that is not confined to just the religious fields.
I would be interested to know what logical reasoning can lead one to the conclusion that God exists?!icantbelieve said:
icantbelieve
Registered User
- Messages
- 131
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
Can I not say the existence of the world and all the amazing things in it, especially life and all its associated inexplicability, allows me to logically conclude that this is proof of a God. It may not be sufficient proof for you but even in the scientific arena everyone doesn't accept the same levels of proof and assumptions are constantly made. In fact a lot of scientific discovery is predicated on not accepting previously accepted assumtions or facts.
Can I not say the existence of the world and all the amazing things in it, especially life and all its associated inexplicability, allows me to logically conclude that this is proof of a God. It may not be sufficient proof for you but even in the scientific arena everyone doesn't accept the same levels of proof and assumptions are constantly made. In fact a lot of scientific discovery is predicated on not accepting previously accepted assumtions or facts.
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
Einsteins' God wasn't the 'traditional' God that most people believe in. Some quotes from the great man himself ...
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
(Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; excerpt from "Albert Einstein the Human Side"),
Also...
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
(Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215;from Alice Calaprice, ed., "The Expanded Quotable Einstein")
He did not believe in a personal God, who does favours or dishes out punishment;
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."
(Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, "Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel" )
... and ...
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
(Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921)
As for the USA, it is quite sad that , as Dawkins pointed out, the worlds only remaining super-power is being ruled by religious fundamentalists. His foray into a Christian Fundamentalist service really highlighted what happens when those who push blind, obedient faith are challenged up-front. He and his TV crew got kicked out.
Dawkins approach is not for the easily offended as he tends to 'shoot from the hip', which puts people on the defensive and so might be counter-productive. Religions put a high value on those of strong faith and who withstand challenges to that faith. This is where science and religious faith are incompatible. Unshakeable, strong faith is by definition anti-scientific, as it will not change when contradicted by scientific discovery and evidence. Within religions, this is a VIRTUE. As such, it is almost impossible to overturn such faith by rational argument.
Einsteins' God wasn't the 'traditional' God that most people believe in. Some quotes from the great man himself ...
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
(Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; excerpt from "Albert Einstein the Human Side"),
Also...
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
(Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215;from Alice Calaprice, ed., "The Expanded Quotable Einstein")
He did not believe in a personal God, who does favours or dishes out punishment;
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."
(Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, "Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel" )
... and ...
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
(Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921)
As for the USA, it is quite sad that , as Dawkins pointed out, the worlds only remaining super-power is being ruled by religious fundamentalists. His foray into a Christian Fundamentalist service really highlighted what happens when those who push blind, obedient faith are challenged up-front. He and his TV crew got kicked out.
Dawkins approach is not for the easily offended as he tends to 'shoot from the hip', which puts people on the defensive and so might be counter-productive. Religions put a high value on those of strong faith and who withstand challenges to that faith. This is where science and religious faith are incompatible. Unshakeable, strong faith is by definition anti-scientific, as it will not change when contradicted by scientific discovery and evidence. Within religions, this is a VIRTUE. As such, it is almost impossible to overturn such faith by rational argument.
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
That doesn't follow logically for me or for anybody who believes that there are more logical explanations for the existence of the universe (e.g. big bang) and the life that inhabits our planet (e.g. theory of evolution).icantbelieve said:
Inspiration? Of course - but then scientific discoveries/theories are then stand or fall on how they hold up against observable evidence and testing. It is impossible to test mystical beliefs using such criteria but the fact that this is not possible doesn't make blind acceptance of them any more logical either. Otherwise why should those who believe in God not also believe in Bertrand Russel's celestial teapot circling Mars (or at least some other astronomical body that is still not within our observable/visited universe) while they're at it?
Well synopsised.redstar said:
icantbelieve
Registered User
- Messages
- 131
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
From what restar has posted it seems that I'm in the same corner as Einstein. I'm not questionning your need for other levels of proof but you seem to think that if I or Einstein don't agree with you that our beliefs are neither logical or reasoned, a major conceit on your behalf.
To me, the basic test (seeing as you want one) is, do I think the existence of life indicates a God, yes, does life exist, yes, therefore there is a God. There are a lot more aspects of life on this planet that reinforce my belief but boiling it down to basics does for me.
By the way this doesn't preclude evolution as even evolution implies that things have to start somewhere, to me the starting place is God.
From what restar has posted it seems that I'm in the same corner as Einstein. I'm not questionning your need for other levels of proof but you seem to think that if I or Einstein don't agree with you that our beliefs are neither logical or reasoned, a major conceit on your behalf.
To me, the basic test (seeing as you want one) is, do I think the existence of life indicates a God, yes, does life exist, yes, therefore there is a God. There are a lot more aspects of life on this planet that reinforce my belief but boiling it down to basics does for me.
By the way this doesn't preclude evolution as even evolution implies that things have to start somewhere, to me the starting place is God.
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
However - as redstar has suggested arguing this issue is a but pointless in the face of those who are prepared to accept the existence of God on a hunch and blind faith so maybe I'll spend my time more constructively.
Cheers.
I don't consider that conceited. It's not a case of you agreeing or disagreeing with me. I don't care. It is, however, a case of accepting that blind acceptance of the existence of God or belief in the mystical aspects of any religion requires the suspension of logical/critical thought. Failure to accept that this is the case flies in the face of reasoned thinking and what most or all religions say about their own beliefs anyway!icantbelieve said:
I have no problem with you holding those or any other views but surely you can recognise and accept that they are not logical at all.
There is no logical reason for that to be the conclusion.
However - as redstar has suggested arguing this issue is a but pointless in the face of those who are prepared to accept the existence of God on a hunch and blind faith so maybe I'll spend my time more constructively.
Cheers.
icantbelieve
Registered User
- Messages
- 131
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
Me too, I'm not trying argue your point is right or wrong just that I have every right to assert that my belief stems from logic, that's where we really differ and is where I feel your conceit is in refusing to allow someone hold a different logically concluded point to yours.
Me too, I'm not trying argue your point is right or wrong just that I have every right to assert that my belief stems from logic, that's where we really differ and is where I feel your conceit is in refusing to allow someone hold a different logically concluded point to yours.
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
Faith cannot be argued using logic. If you can show, through logic, that there is a God then there is no need to have faith because it would then be a fact or at least a logical theory.
I don't consider Clubman's views conceited either. His stance is perfectly logical. My problem with Dawkins programme is that it tarred everyone with any religious beliefs with the same brush. Secularised western believers were cast in the same light as fundamentalists who blew themselves up. It was clumsy.
Faith cannot be argued using logic. If you can show, through logic, that there is a God then there is no need to have faith because it would then be a fact or at least a logical theory.
I don't consider Clubman's views conceited either. His stance is perfectly logical. My problem with Dawkins programme is that it tarred everyone with any religious beliefs with the same brush. Secularised western believers were cast in the same light as fundamentalists who blew themselves up. It was clumsy.
icantbelieve
Registered User
- Messages
- 131
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
Only returning to this to clarify and I'm writing slowly so that you can follow this,
I didn't say clubman's views were conceited (and I'm assuming clubman knows this or would have said so himself) nor am I saying that his stance is not derived from logic.
I'm saying my belief in God is based on logic, as I've displayed, and that it takes conceit to dispute my right to state this just because you don't agree with my logic.
I've not referred to faith so don't dispute me on something I haven't averred and to be honest your alusions to scientific proof are based on faith. You haven't carried out or even seen first hand the vast majority of scientific tests yet you believe them to be correct because you have faith in the claims and integrity of others.
Only returning to this to clarify and I'm writing slowly so that you can follow this,
I didn't say clubman's views were conceited (and I'm assuming clubman knows this or would have said so himself) nor am I saying that his stance is not derived from logic.
I'm saying my belief in God is based on logic, as I've displayed, and that it takes conceit to dispute my right to state this just because you don't agree with my logic.
I've not referred to faith so don't dispute me on something I haven't averred and to be honest your alusions to scientific proof are based on faith. You haven't carried out or even seen first hand the vast majority of scientific tests yet you believe them to be correct because you have faith in the claims and integrity of others.
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
Surely this is six of one and half a dozen of another?icantbelieve said:
icantbelieve said:
The following is not logical:
In fact it seems, to me, to be a circular argument. If you believe in God it must, by definition, be on faith alone. There is no objective, logical reason to do so otherwise.
icantbelieve
Registered User
- Messages
- 131
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
Fair enough, one of your views is conceited but its only the one that doesn't allow for mine to be equally valid.
Are circular arguments wrong by default now?
Anyway its not circular, sometime ago I decided that I wasn't prepared to believe in God just because my Catholic upbringing dictated I should so I ditched my automatic belief based on faith. I then looked around me and said well if I don't believe in a god just because I'm told to do I still believe in a God. Then, having examined my surroundings and seen many amazing things that can't be explained by science, and having seen that just as organised religion can abandon once firmly held beliefs as time goes by so too are supposed scientific facts often disproved, I decided the logic dictated that life was started by God.
I mean most of these scientific statements about what happened are just theories, has anyone conducted a big bang experiment and created life. Yet just because a scientist has a whole load of physcially provable facts behind them means these theories are accepted as fact, on what basis, faith in science?
Fair enough, one of your views is conceited but its only the one that doesn't allow for mine to be equally valid.
Are circular arguments wrong by default now?
Anyway its not circular, sometime ago I decided that I wasn't prepared to believe in God just because my Catholic upbringing dictated I should so I ditched my automatic belief based on faith. I then looked around me and said well if I don't believe in a god just because I'm told to do I still believe in a God. Then, having examined my surroundings and seen many amazing things that can't be explained by science, and having seen that just as organised religion can abandon once firmly held beliefs as time goes by so too are supposed scientific facts often disproved, I decided the logic dictated that life was started by God.
I mean most of these scientific statements about what happened are just theories, has anyone conducted a big bang experiment and created life. Yet just because a scientist has a whole load of physcially provable facts behind them means these theories are accepted as fact, on what basis, faith in science?
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...
Do you believe in everything that can't be explained or disproved by science? If not why do you just pick one, God, rather than all the others? Why not the celestial teapot? Or pixies?icantbelieve said:
Precisely - they are just theories that are subject to refinement and change in some cases. However they are the best and most logical models by which we can explain things (e.g. big bank, evolution).
Has anybody conducted a creationism or intelligent design experiment and created life?
On the basis of experimentation (where possible), observable evidence and/or predictive capabilities of the models. Not simply hunches or assumptions.