Richard Dawkins Special on ABC Tonight

[Aya]

As the Title says, Richard Dawkins special tonight on ABC at 9:20.

Thought a few people might be interested.

Peace

Aya

[sweeet]

Meh... not sure if I'll both watching another episode. It's not that difficult to debunk new-age swindlers but I don't think the pompous, fundamentalist, arrogant shit realises how similar he is to some of the people he opposes.

[Undergrounder]

So is it possible to try and argue reasonably with someone without coming across as a pompous arrogant shit? I thought he attacked the new-age movement with all the ferocity of a wet sponge. He was actually trying to be pretty accommodating to the people in the episode, he was polite and seemed to be reacting fairly honestly. Does speaking with an English accent = pompous? Does insisting in the relative objectivity of science = fundamentalist? Does having a rational argument and the courage of your convictions = arrogant?

[Conan Troutman]

point is he is one of the only scientific minds who will publicly debate and or question the current human condition....

[chilli]

So is it possible to try and argue reasonably with someone without coming across as a pompous arrogant shit? I thought he attacked the new-age movement with all the ferocity of a wet sponge. He was actually trying to be pretty accommodating to the people in the episode, he was polite and seemed to be reacting fairly honestly. Does speaking with an English accent = pompous? Does insisting in the relative objectivity of science = fundamentalist? Does having a rational argument and the courage of your convictions = arrogant?

He is hardly reasonable... just another typical disgruntled holdover from the modernist era. Good entertainment though, plus he is an excellent example of militant atheist extremism, the perfect complement to someone like Pat Robertson for instance.

The part in his series where he interviews Ted Haggard is one of the funniest and most ridiculous things I've seen recently.

I partly agree with CT, he is bringing popular attention to some very neglected issues, shame he has to be such a narrow minded bigot as well... maybe that is what is required?

*edit* What I mean is, I think the world needs people like Richard Dawkins if they are the only ones who confront us and stir us out of our smug complacency... even if he is a bit smug, too. Smug is an awesome word. Anyway, maybe this is wrong and in a truly ironic twist he's right about fundamentalism being dangerous in which case I find his fanatical and apparently blind obedience to a priori assumptions as well as his militant intolerance disturbingly similar to that evinced by the religious extremists he so loaths.

That's what I don't get about him... in his own field he seems in many ways reasonable and brilliant, yet he is as unwilling to turn the spotlight on his own and the scientific... community's? establishment's? assumptions about the nature of life and reality as the YEC he mocks are to scrutinize their own form of circular logic and self-interested reasoning. But yeah, maybe his gross physicalism is a good balance to the disturbing trend towards uncritical mystical thought, which is equally ugly.

I do think he needs to take a lot more mescaline, but maybe it would be asking for another Sartre disaster.

Besides, he's a funny old bugger and interesting to watch, as well as listen to... you have to love that private school boy smarm.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Sublime Crime

[strangebrew]

Yawn.

I'd rather watch Penn & Teller.

[MORG]

He certainly polarises opinion. Personally, I have alot of respect for him and like what he does. But I'm one of those unreasonable, arrogant, pompous, materialist, militant atheists who argues for reason and rationality over superstition and emotion.

Penn and Teller's on?!? When, where?!

[2b]

Gotta agree with you Morg.

[apothecary]

He certainly polarises opinion. Personally, I have alot of respect for him and like what he does. But I'm one of those unreasonable, arrogant, pompous, materialist, militant atheists who argues for reason and rationality over superstition and emotion.

You just like to stick to that meme cos it's a comfortable one. Science sprung from Philosophy, those who pen Science as essentially not having room for Philosophy need to recognise this.

Generally, there are very few scientific discoveries which if you trace them far back enough on the "science fact tree" don't end up at one assumption or another. For example, the assumption that Descartes got it right with cogito ergo, sum and it's not actually cogito cogito ergo, sum.

If you even recognise the "more than just possible" probability of an 'other' (in whatever form) then you are far from a militant atheist. Very few psychedelic afficiandos don't recognise this as at least a valid, and imo recognising it excludes atheism as anything more than just one possibility in an infinitesimal list, on which it is equally weighted with the possibility religion is correct.

Of course if you adamnantly believe the entirety of the psychedelic/transcendentory experience is pure neurochemistry, I'll shut my mouth. 'Cos you know...that'd be like trying to argue with a Christian about God

Edited May 5, 2008 by Sina

[2b]

 

 

cogito cogito ergo, sum

LMAO !!! This sort of fits in with my 'Agnostic with doubts' outlook at the moment.

[chilli]

You just like to stick to that meme cos it's a comfortable one. Science sprung from Philosophy, those who pen Science as essentially not having room for Philosophy need to recognise this.

Generally, there are very few scientific discoveries which if you trace them far back enough on the "science fact tree" don't end up at one assumption or another. For example, the assumption that Descartes got it right with cogito ergo, sum and it's not actually cogito cogito ergo, sum.

If you even recognise the "more than just possible" probability of an 'other' (in whatever form) then you are far from a militant atheist. Very few psychedelic afficiandos don't recognise this as at least a valid, and imo recognising it excludes atheism as anything more than just one possibility in an infinitesimal list, on which it is equally weighted with the possibility religion is correct.

Of course if you adamnantly believe the entirety of the psychedelic/transcendentory experience is pure neurochemistry, I'll shut my mouth. 'Cos you know...that'd be like trying to argue with a Christian about God

What the fuck... we are in agreement again Sina! Not much I could add to that, save to say that not only the scientific approach but ultimately every worldview can be traced back to various assumptions, which is why I think it's a bit silly for someone as educated and intelligent as Dawkins to be so dogmatic and intolerant.

Morg, it's not his opposition to superstition and unthinking obedience to creeds and authorities that I think are unreasonable, in fact I find many of his arguments against religion compelling to a point, although much of it would be considered fairly passe by most contemporary experts in theology and religion. I just think he goes way too far outside of his own field of expertise when he gets all preachy, and as I said it's his unwillingness to turn the spotlight of reason on his own assumptions that I find unreasonable. Not that I blame him, it can be very discomfiting.

[2b]

save to say that not only the scientific approach but ultimately every worldview can be traced back to various assumptions

An assumption is not a theory or a fact . Dawkins' own field of expertise is Biology and i think he is no shrieking violet when it comes to looking at his own ideas. Isn't the whole idea of a theory to put your idea before your peers and have them shoot it down ? The sooner it gets proven wrong the sooner everyone can get back on the right track and discount the idea as wrong. The longer the theory stands the more it looks like a fact (Copernicus had a theory that the earth goes round the sun , it's still a theory but not proven wrong)

[Undergrounder]

Sublim_crime i don't think you really argued anything there. Moving on.

Morg: well said.

2b: Well agreed with Morg.

Sina: Who says that science doesn't have room for philosophy and why do 'they' have any relevance? I think its faily well accepted that science and philosophy are essentially connected?

Cogito cogito ergo sum? Science doesn't put a lick of credence in the cogito, it fails, miserably. But if you want to go up the science fact tree far enough, of course everything breaks down. But so what? it doesn't stop a rocket making it to the moon, it doesn't stop us splitting the atom, but more importantly, it doesn't mean that religion or mysticism or spirituality exists either...

To put it in your words, the "more than just possible probability of an other" doesn't make the other true either, and it certainly doesn't afford it the same weight of possibility as what we currently know. That's like saying your three-legged donkey could conceivable win a Group 1 race at Randwick - the odds are tiny, but it's possible. THEREFORE "I believe that three-legged donkeys can win a Group 1 horse race" is as equally a valid belief as "I believe that fit and healthy thoroughbreds can win a Group 1 horse race."

By the way is EVERYONE doing a Descartes course at the moment? this is the third epistemology argument i've gotten into in 2 days..

Anyway, i don't know if this is your assertion, but science and philosophy are not separate. For instance in your last example about neurochemistry and conscious/psychedelic experience, philosophy AND science are both aiming to answer those questions. Science through the scientific method and philosophy through the method of reason. Mysticism/Spirituality/Religion as a method of understanding the subject can never find real truth.

[FungalFractoids]

He's a BRILLIANT evolutionary biologist... I wish he'd go back to his day job.

[chilli]

2b you have underscored exactly what I was trying to point out... Dawkins' field of expertise is evolutionary biology, which last I checked has nothing to say about religion, God or abiogenesis, and any number of other things he writes about in his popular books. I am not talking about Dawkins' reticence to turn the spotlight on his scientific theories, but rather his philosophical and religious ones.

Undergrounder, huh? You praise MORG's facetious remarks about his personal opinion, but dismiss my posts as a non-argument... let's go along with your assumption that I was actually trying to argue something, and not just expressing my opinion as MORG was... why does what I wrote not qualify as an argument in your view?

*edit* If you just meant you don't find my arguments convincing, would you have the common courtesy to please point out specifically what you disagree with or don't understand?

Edited May 5, 2008 by Sublime Crime

[macro]

He's a BRILLIANT evolutionary biologist... I wish he'd go back to his day job.

Agreed. Though as someone else mentioned, it's good entertainment.

[apothecary]

LMAO !!! This sort of fits in with my 'Agnostic with doubts' outlook at the moment.

Gotta agree with you Morg.

You agree with me, and MORG?

Cogito cogito ergo sum? Science doesn't put a lick of credence in the cogito, it fails, miserably. But if you want to go up the science fact tree far enough, of course everything breaks down. But so what? it doesn't stop a rocket making it to the moon, it doesn't stop us splitting the atom, but more importantly, it doesn't mean that religion or mysticism or spirituality exists either...

You misunderstood me mate. I'm not disputing the functionality of science.

To put it in your words, the "more than just possible probability of an other" doesn't make the other true either, and it certainly doesn't afford it the same weight of possibility as what we currently know. That's like saying your three-legged donkey could conceivable win a Group 1 race at Randwick - the odds are tiny, but it's possible. THEREFORE "I believe that three-legged donkeys can win a Group 1 horse race" is as equally a valid belief as "I believe that fit and healthy thoroughbreds can win a Group 1 horse race."

Once again, you misunderstood me. I was pointing out that if you give any credence to any possibility of an other, then you are not a militant atheist.

By the way is EVERYONE doing a Descartes course at the moment? this is the third epistemology argument i've gotten into in 2 days..

How condescending. I've never done a "Descartes course" in my life (or any philosophical study not of my own didactic urges).

Anyway, i don't know if this is your assertion, but science and philosophy are not separate. For instance in your last example about neurochemistry and conscious/psychedelic experience, philosophy AND science are both aiming to answer those questions. Science through the scientific method and philosophy through the method of reason. Mysticism/Spirituality/Religion as a method of understanding the subject can never find real truth.

Science does not explain entity contact, healing, out of body experiences that are "impossible", etc etc. I'm not saying Philosophy succeeds where Science fails, but by nature only one of the two can question the issue in a more complete manner.

This is a huge tangent.

[chilli]

How condescending. I've never done a "Descartes course" in my life (or any philosophical study not of my own didactic urges).

I thought that at first too, but I think Undergrounder means he is studying Descartes at the moment, and saying "so is everyone else studying the same thing?" ie. synchronous. At least, that's what I told myself to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It is a tangent but we all knew this would happen when we saw "Richard Dawkins" in the title.

Anyway, back OT has anyone actually watched the damn show? Also, what was it called/about/series was it a part of, as I am looking to dl it.

[Undergrounder]

Sublime_crime: Sorry my bad, you got it right the first time, i was assuming you were trying to argue something. That is a dumb assumption. I was praising MORG'S implied suggestion that someone who argues "for reason and rationality over superstition and emotion" often seems to attract criticism for being "unreasonable, arrogant, pompous, materialist, militant atheists" etc. I don't think that's really a facetious assertion, given the language of the first few posts in this thread.

Sina: Didn't mean to be condescending (i guess its easy to read the wrong intonation when people use CAPITALS, maybe italics would have been better.. less aggressive maybe. Maybe i was subconsciously reacting to your somewhat condescending remark that MORG "just likes to stick to that meme cos it's a comfortable one"), but it's just a fact that i've had three different arguments involving Descartes and epistemology in the last 2 days and i thought there might be a reason for it - Edit: and yes Sublime_crime i am halfway through a course, and it just so happens that there is a local philosophy group doing the exact same thing - i hardly ever heard of the guy and now BAM 3000 words later i can't shake the guy.)

Sublime_crimex2: I think it's called "Enemies of reason" or something. The first bit really wasn't that good, i don't know much about Dawkins other than what i saw from this very program. But he certainly didn't come across as deserving of all the hype/anger people seem to have towards him.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Undergrounder

[Undergrounder]

Can i also just make a point right here? Already im coming across as condescending and dismissive, S_c is naturally slightly defensive and Sina is pulling out 'mate' in the way we know 'mate' isn't meant to be used. That brings me back to my first point: Is it impossible to try and argue for something, both sides having the courage of their convictions, without the thing degenerating?

So back On topic, this is the problem i see with Dawkins, he believes in his argument, and as far as i can tell his reasoning is pretty sound. Why then all the angst?

Edited May 5, 2008 by Undergrounder

[chilli]

Is it impossible to try and argue something and have the courage of your convictions without the thing degenerating?

The only thing degenerating seems to be you

BTW thought I should point out that I read in New Scientist that Dawkins had made a slight concession to the idea that there might be something "other" that is beyond his ken, but it isn't that that makes him militant, rather his espousal of atheism as the only conclusion a reasonable person would reach about the nature of the universe. In my view, this is arrogant and I find his intolerance of religion distasteful. Doesn't mean I don't think he's a top bloke, I just disagree with him fundamentally... but I do think, as I argued earlier, that his voice is providing a much needed corrective to the religious pride and intolerance that is suffocating the world, and the continual blurring of the line between church and state. Maybe this isn't the best way to look at it though, when you consider that both forms of extremism, religious and secular, are used to force maladjustive memes upon successive generations.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Sublime Crime

[Undergrounder]

The only thing degenerating seems to be you

hmmmm at first i thought you were getting personal and trying to soften the impact with a sunglass smilie... but now i think the irony of the statement is so obvious that you must be joking - hence the sunglass smilie. Fucking internet language. What does the sunglass smilie mean again? "Fuck you but let's be friends" or "'lol' fuck you mate (in a jokey way)".

I'm taking it as the second...

In truth i don't know anything about whether Dawkins says that it's the only conclusion a resonable person would make. For me it seems reasonable for instance that the 'other' exists, it simply isn't causally related to our world in a physical way. If it was causally related, then it would be measurable in some way, which so far, it isn't. For example so far noone has been able to establish how consciousness is causally related to the physical neurons, and there are many alternative ideas as to how it could exist: meterialistic vs. panpsychic, dualist, monist, functionalist... So there's a different conclusion, one that's equally valid, and if Dawkins wrote an entire book on the subject, i can't see how he would have left out that for starters. But yeah, i don't know.

I don't find his intolerance of religion distateful, but i can see his point (again i'm only inferring the kinds of things he would say from that one episode). I think religion is irrational, but that's not necessarily a fault. I can stand on top of a mountain in the Kosciuszko National Park and smell the air and feel the breeze and see the snow and grass and experience something that is more than the sum of the parts. There's something in that, but even if there isn't and all mystical experiences are simply an accident of evolutionary behaviour i'm happy with that as well. I don't care what the answer is, i just want to find it. I think the emotion revolving around the issue is totally distracting.

I missed your argument i'm sorry, but i agree that both voices are required to keep eachother honest. If there wasn't such vitriol though i wonder whether people could move forward faster.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Undergrounder

[chilli]

As you're apparently either too stupid to understand or too arrogant and rude to admit as worthy of your attention my earlier thoughts on the subject, and as despite a couple of attempts on my part at clarification you continue to obfuscate without providing any substantial or even cogent criticism, I feel there's not much point continuing the discussion, I hope you understand.

To close:

"In truth i don't know anything"

QED

[MORG]

You just like to stick to that meme cos it's a comfortable one. Science sprung from Philosophy, those who pen Science as essentially not having room for Philosophy need to recognise this.

Perhaps those targets that are easy are those with the weakest foundations? Those that everyone else knows are easy targets for that very reason and those that should have been shot down hundreds of years ago?

What does philosophy have to do with this? The philosophy of Christianity is very different to Zen which is very different to the writings of Daniel Dennett. The realm of "philosophy" is too broad for it to be useful. Some ideas are just more reasonable than others.

I understand this, and I must admit now that my formal "philosophy" education is not exactly extensive. Science does spring from philosophy. Philosophy could be considered to be those ideas, reached through a logical and reasoned progression of thought, which appear in science and are then tested. The "theories". What I like about science is the movement of these philosophical thought experiments out of thought and into the detectable, scrutible real world.

Of course if you adamnantly believe the entirety of the psychedelic/transcendentory experience is pure neurochemistry, I'll shut my mouth. 'Cos you know...that'd be like trying to argue with a Christian about God

See, and with that comment you miss Dawkins' point entirely. I do believe the entirety of the psychedelic/transcendentory experience is pure neurochemistry, it's the most parsimonious explanation (given our current level of knowledge about the working of the world), it's Occam's Razor, it's the most probable explanation a reasonable person can come to. Hey, bring me back the head of a machine elf and I might change my mind.

Edited May 6, 2008 by MORG

[devance]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...ge_id=1770'

Attack of the killer ravens: Flocks are suddenly slaughtering lambs - what is going on?

'Throughout Britain, traumatised farmers have reported a sudden and disturbing rise in the number of livestock being attacked by ravens.

Another, Robert Millar from High Catterdale, Kintyre, said: "We've had 12 to 15 lambs attacked. It's got to the stage where you have to lamb indoors, or you don't stand a chance."

they go for eyes first.

Not good place to be if in a wheel chair.

Still the best exponent of athiestic scientificism as a icon.

Probably not a possiblity as to crows plucking his eyes out.