Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: CONservativeAgenda (IP Logged)
Date: September 25, 2013 02:14PM
A good interview
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Gary_Rosati (IP Logged)
Date: September 25, 2013 07:52PM
CONservativeAgenda Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Dawkins says…
>
> You shouldn’t believe anything without proof. No
> God.
Well, he said you need some evidence. You don’t need absolute proof. He admitted even science has faith. What he criticized was blind faith, belief irrespective of the evidence. And while many have blind faith in “God” there is, perhaps, some intriguing evidence for some kind of intelligent design.
This is from an article I recently read:
“Over the last 40 years, physicists have realized that various universal parameters, like the mass of the electron (a type of subatomic particle) and the strength of the nuclear force (the force that holds the subatomic particles together within the centers of atoms), appear to be precisely calibrated. That is, if these parameters were a little larger or a little smaller than they actually are, the complex molecules needed for life could never have formed.”
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: capedcrusader (IP Logged)
Date: September 25, 2013 09:12PM
Gary_Rosati
there is, perhaps, some intriguing evidence for some kind of intelligent design.
Even if this were so, and I am open to belief in a Creator, and our universe and life itself were not the products of accidental and suitable parameters of cosmological natural selection, none of this intelligent design talk validates organized religion, Biblicism and mythological theology.
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Gary_Rosati (IP Logged)
Date: September 26, 2013 12:06AM
capedcrusader Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Gary_Rosati
>
> there is, perhaps, some intriguing evidence for
> some kind of intelligent design.
>
>
> Even if this were so, and I am open to belief in a
> Creator, and our universe and life itself were
> not the products of accidental and suitable
> parameters of cosmological natural selection, none
> of this intelligent design talk validates
> organized religion, Biblicism and mythological
> theology.
I agree. The Bronze age religions we still follow today are well past it.
I wonder, however, if Dawkins, and guys like him, would ever consider a religion which was supported by scientific evidence and had no supernatural mumbo-jumbo?
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Alexandre (IP Logged)
Date: September 26, 2013 07:26AM
Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> capedcrusader Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > Gary_Rosati
> >
> > there is, perhaps, some intriguing evidence for
> > some kind of intelligent design.
> >
> >
> > Even if this were so, and I am open to belief in
> a
> > Creator, and our universe and life itself were
> > not the products of accidental and suitable
> > parameters of cosmological natural selection,
> none
> > of this intelligent design talk validates
> > organized religion, Biblicism and mythological
> > theology.
>
> I agree. The Bronze age religions we still follow
> today are well past it.
>
> I wonder, however, if Dawkins, and guys like him,
> would ever consider a religion which was supported
> by scientific evidence and had no supernatural
> mumbo-jumbo?
What if our courts only admitted scientific evidence. What if our courts said, in effect, the only true knowledge is scientific knowledge.
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Gary_Rosati (IP Logged)
Date: September 26, 2013 09:15AM
Alexandre Wrote:
———————————-
>
> What if our courts only admitted scientific
> evidence. What if our courts said, in effect, the
> only true knowledge is scientific knowledge.
Well, on matters of faith each of us are our own judge and jury, but understand, if you do choose blind faith then you will be, increasingly, marginalize, questioned, and even ridiculed. This is the reality of life in our modern information age.
The old Bonze Age religions will be increasingly marginalize as the world’s population becomes less rural and less bound by tradition. Advances in transportation and communication make that inevitable. But the purpose and need for religion will not fade.
Humanity has a deep-seated and emotional need for a connection with the universe, one that offers an objective source of morality. The challenge today is to find that connection, real or imagined, which is consistent with our scientific understanding of the universe but yet gives purpose and meaning to life.
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Alexandre (IP Logged)
Date: September 26, 2013 11:53PM
Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Alexandre Wrote:
> ———————————-
> >
> > What if our courts only admitted scientific
> > evidence. What if our courts said, in effect,
> the
> > only true knowledge is scientific knowledge.
>
> Well, on matters of faith each of us are our own
> judge and jury, but understand, if you do choose
> blind faith then you will be, increasingly,
> marginalize, questioned, and even ridiculed. This
> is the reality of life in our modern information
> age.
I would agree about “blind”. But one can have an informed faith in any of the mainstream versions of any the major religions.
I enjoyed a book from college so much that I never sold the book back. It’s on my shelf all these years later. It’s Huston Smith’s “Religions of the World.”
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Gary_Rosati (IP Logged)
Date: September 27, 2013 10:35AM
Alexandre Wrote:
——————————————————-
> I would agree about “blind”. But one can have an
> informed faith in any of the mainstream versions
> of any the major religions.
>
> I enjoyed a book from college so much that I never
> sold the book back. It’s on my shelf all these
> years later. It’s Huston Smith’s “Religions of the
> World.”
The problem with the old religions is they came about at a time when we understood little about the world around us. Mysticism, supernatural beings, miracles, an after-life — these notions were well establish and incorporated in the old faiths we still practice today. Yet it is these very notions that many modern people find questionable and objectionable. Religion needs to get beyond these primitive notions, and find faith in natural phenomena, phenomena that suggests, or hints, or analogizes an objective moral value.
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: cowboyearl (IP Logged)
Date: September 28, 2013 12:05AM
Those less intelligent, Need to believe in something more than just living a life, then dying.
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Gary_Rosati (IP Logged)
Date: September 28, 2013 07:01AM
cowboyearl Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Those less intelligent, Need to believe in
> something more than just living a life, then
> dying.
But even Cowboys want to live a GOOD life befor they die. How do you determine what’s good and what’s evil earl, anyone?
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Minimalist (IP Logged)
Date: September 28, 2013 08:51AM
Gary, people have been figuring that out since the dawn of civilization with a lot of trial and error and mixed success.
But there are some common themes that almost every society goes by, so it’s really not that tough.
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Gary_Rosati (IP Logged)
Date: September 28, 2013 10:01AM
Minimalist Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Gary, people have been figuring that out since the
> dawn of civilization with a lot of trial and error
> and mixed success.
>
> But there are some common themes that almost every
> society goes by, …
So we get our morality from society. But societies are difference, so if there are common themes then perhaps something higher is a source?
Can we say what these common themes might be?
> … so it’s really not that tough.
And yet people have been trying to figuring it out since the dawn of civilization with a lot of trial and error and mixed success.
Yeah, there’s this strange duality. In one sense we seem to know instinctively good and evil. But then its all gray. I think the grays come from a conflict of goods, like life and freedom. Would you die for freedom? But that moral instinct, where does that come from?
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Alexandre (IP Logged)
Date: September 28, 2013 12:00PM
Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> The problem with the old religions is they came
> about at a time when we understood little about
> the world around us. Mysticism, supernatural
> beings, miracles, an after-life — these notions
> were well establish and incorporated in the old
> faiths we still practice today. Yet it is these
> very notions that many modern people find
> questionable and objectionable.
“Modern people” are in the main stream religions too. Modern people, in substantial numbers, are found in every mainstream religion. What is a religion if it doesn’t purport to explain a purpose to life and lead to an afterlife.
It all depends on what lenses you are viewing a particular religion through. For example, Rowan Williams and Pat Robertson are both prominent Christians, yet they have very different interpretations of their faith.
Religion needs to
> get beyond these primitive notions, and find faith
> in natural phenomena, phenomena that suggests, or
> hints, or analogizes an objective moral value.
By itself, that idea can’t be a religion. Instead, that’s some sort of philosophy of nature.
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Gary_Rosati (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2013 09:54AM
Alexandre Wrote:
——————————————————-
>
> “Modern people” are in the main stream religions
> too. Modern people, in substantial numbers, are
> found in every mainstream religion.
Never said they weren’t, but formal membership is on the decline in the developed world, has been for sometime. The percentage of people identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, or other is on the rise. Even among the faithful they have very different interpretations of their faith. The old Religions have deteriorated from a comprehensive worldview to a smoggiest-board of belief options from which people pick and chose.
> What is a
> religion if it doesn’t purport to explain a
> purpose to life and lead to an afterlife.
Certainly a religion should explain a purpose to life but an afterlife is only really necessary if that is the religion’s purpose to life, to be reborn in some afterlife. Otherwise the afterlife works as a award system for virtue. Be good and you’ll go to heaven. Be bad and, well, its the other place for you! This is childish. Virtue should be its own reward.
>
> By itself, that idea can’t be a religion. Instead,
> that’s some sort of philosophy of nature.
Labels [sigh]. Yeah, say religion because it gives some sort of moral guidance and purpose to life, and its beyond science so its based on faith. Really what I have in mind is perhaps best described as a Teleology, which is to say a bit religion and philosophy. But its a Teleology that attempts to incorporate our current scientific understand of the universe and be consistent with that understanding.
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Alexandre (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2013 10:41AM
Gary,
You’re right, the rise of people unaffiliated with formal religious denominations is on the rise. But as I understand, that doesn’t mean they are any less religious or spiritual. They just don’t get dressed up on Sunday morning and sit in a pew. And many of those who would’ve attended the big old school denominations are now attending small unaffiliated non-denominational churches.
I am one of those nones. I grew up Jewish. I don’t formally practice my faith. I don’t literally believe in the Pentateuch. But I am on a search for the spiritual and I recognize the enormous trove of wisdom that is found in Judaism. I also was a grad student at a Catholic University and can tell you that some really well-educated people adhere to formal old line religions.
On the afterlife, perhaps I should have said “eternal” or “timeless”. A religion should be eternal; meaning it should explain before we are born and after we die. Religions that change with the times or try to become “contemporary” lose the sense of timelessness.
As for the childish part, I would agree that depictions of Hell being a place managed by a red man with a pitchfork and tail is childish. The same with Heaven, angels with wings and harps living in clouds is equally ridiculous. But if those things are thought of as allegories, instead of being literally true, they make for (for me) powerful allegories–ala Dante’s Inferno.
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Alexandre (IP Logged)
Date: October 01, 2013 07:46PM
Dennis Prager on morality with God: “If there is no God, the labels “good” and “evil” are merely opinions. They are substitutes for “I like it” and “I don’t like it.” They are not objective realities.”
[www.nationalreview.com]
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Gary_Rosati (IP Logged)
Date: October 01, 2013 10:23PM
Alexandre Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Dennis Prager on morality with God: “If there is
> no God, the labels “good” and “evil” are merely
> opinions. They are substitutes for “I like it” and
> “I don’t like it.” They are not objective
> realities.”
Yeah, morality as objective reality, that’s the trick.
It’s also the God claim. But saying God, or more particularly the God of the Judeo-Christian religions, is the source of objective morality ignores an obvious fact, that this God impart its precious wisdom though the written words of priests, clerics and scholars.
Its not a supernatural being that imparts Judeo-Christian morality but subjective mortal men. Divinely inspired? So say the faithful, but its hardly objective. Any claim of objectivity is caused by the collective effort of thousands of such priests, clerics and scholars who, over the past thousand years or so, rewrote and codified the words, then rewrote and re-codified hundreds of times over again.
Objective morality is not dependent on supernatural intervention but a concept of moral value. The philosopher Fredrick Nietzsche gave a concept of moral value for both Judeo-Christian religions and pagan religions, which he claimed both are deeply rooted in the pre-history of man. The challenge today is derive yet another concept of moral value deeply rooted in the stars.
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: CONservativeAgenda (IP Logged)
Date: October 01, 2013 11:11PM
Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Alexandre Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > Dennis Prager on morality with God: “If there
> is
> > no God, the labels “good” and “evil” are merely
> > opinions. They are substitutes for “I like it”
> and
> > “I don’t like it.” They are not objective
> > realities.”
>
> Yeah, morality as objective reality, that’s the
> trick.
>
> It’s also the God claim. But saying God, or more
> particularly the God of the Judeo-Christian
> religions, is the source of objective morality
> ignores an obvious fact, that this God impart its
> precious wisdom though the written words of
> priests, clerics and scholars.
>
> Its not a supernatural being that imparts
> Judeo-Christian morality but subjective mortal
> men. Divinely inspired? So say the faithful, but
> its hardly objective. Any claim of objectivity is
> caused by the collective effort of thousands of
> such priests, clerics and scholars who, over the
> past thousand years or so, rewrote and codified
> the words, then rewrote and re-codified hundreds
> of times over again.
>
> Objective morality is not dependent on
> supernatural intervention but a concept of moral
> value. The philosopher Fredrick Nietzsche gave a
> concept of moral value for both Judeo-Christian
> religions and pagan religions, which he claimed
> both are deeply rooted in the pre-history of man.
> The challenge today is derive yet another concept
> of moral value deeply rooted in the stars.
You’re right Gary. Morality needs no God. It’s really pretty easy to figure out. The Incan Gods always needed sacrifices. How moral is that? To the sacrificee? Factor in the wars and conflicts and massive casualties from religious wars, the pedophile priests, Ursuline and Mooney cheating for football glory, and it’s pretty evident Alex has not read about the killings the Catholic church was known for a few hundred years ago.
If that’s what Christians call morality, I’ll pass.
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Alexandre (IP Logged)
Date: October 01, 2013 11:22PM
Gary_Rosati Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Alexandre Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > Dennis Prager on morality with God: “If there
> is
> > no God, the labels “good” and “evil” are merely
> > opinions. They are substitutes for “I like it”
> and
> > “I don’t like it.” They are not objective
> > realities.”
>
> Yeah, morality as objective reality, that’s the
> trick.
>
> It’s also the God claim. But saying God, or more
> particularly the God of the Judeo-Christian
> religions, is the source of objective morality
> ignores an obvious fact, that this God impart its
> precious wisdom though the written words of
> priests, clerics and scholars.
>
> Its not a supernatural being that imparts
> Judeo-Christian morality but subjective mortal
> men. Divinely inspired? So say the faithful, but
> its hardly objective. Any claim of objectivity is
> caused by the collective effort of thousands of
> such priests, clerics and scholars who, over the
> past thousand years or so, rewrote and codified
> the words, then rewrote and re-codified hundreds
> of times over again.
>
> Objective morality is not dependent on
> supernatural intervention but a concept of moral
> value. The philosopher Fredrick Nietzsche gave a
> concept of moral value for both Judeo-Christian
> religions and pagan religions, which he claimed
> both are deeply rooted in the pre-history of man.
> The challenge today is derive yet another concept
> of moral value deeply rooted in the stars.
You’re right about these religions being passed down by generations of scholars, scribes, Rabbis, Priests, etc… And it’s true they wrote and rewrote. Nonetheless, basic consistencies and themes remain through the ages.
I haven’t read Nietzsche, but a devout Jew, Christian and Muslim would agree about a moral value rooted in the pre-history of man. They would agree because they believe in a moral value that is eternal.
Lastly, we’ll never find find a moral value in anything amoral. Nature, to include the stars, is amoral.
Re: Richard Dawkins and religion!!!
Posted by: Gary_Rosati (IP Logged)
Date: October 02, 2013 12:36AM
Alexandre Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Lastly, we’ll never find find a moral value in
> anything amoral. Nature, to include the stars, is
> amoral.
The mind of man is clever enough to find morality in the strangest of place, including Darwin’s theory of natural (a moral) selection. What law of nature could possibly provide another such metaphor? Perhaps something simple, “scary simple”, but which gives rise to “extraordinary, spooky phenomena”.