BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Richard Dawkins is a Fox.

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
iamus
13:59 / 22.11.06
Erm, isn't sciene and logic just as implicit in all the worlds woes?

What with bombs and swords and stuff?
 
 
Stoatie. Stoatie? STOATIE.
14:19 / 22.11.06
It doesn't really get much more coldly logical than eugenics.
 
 
Wristwatch Nuke
15:35 / 22.11.06
It doesn't really get much more coldly logical than eugenics.

Historically eugenics never seemed that logical to me, considering that in every instances where it was advocated/used the people implementing it had absolutely no idea of the action of hereditary (plus the most notorious instance wasn't based on any actual logic but on utterly illogical political theories). Horribly hit-and-miss.

But the point stands. Some diabolical things have been done "in the name of science".

For my part I have always enjoyed Dawkins books on evolutionary theory. When he gets going on his anti-religion vibe he gets terribly ranty and that does tend to put people off. I personally agree with quite a lot of his points, but do feel that he'd be a bit easier for people of faith to listen to if he wasn't quite so condescending.

But religion is uniquely equipped to answer certain questions on which science is silent, e.g. Who are we? Why are we here? How are we to behave?

I'd disagree. IMO Religion says "This is the answer, but don't question why it's the answer, just trust that it is."

Science says "We don't know...yet."
 
 
Rex Feral
17:47 / 22.11.06
Scientist: As I was trying to get at in my post above, science and religion are such different beasts and dealing with such different territories, that saying they'll have both have answers that can be ranked, assessed and matched against each other in the same way is a bit absurd, I feel. It's this kind of blindness to other dimensions of religious thought that frustrated me in the extract from the God Delusion I've read. Even positing that there is an *answer* (rather than say, an experiential felt truth - revelation if you will) shows two very different mindsets at work.

Plus Dawkins' personal mindset seems to me to have a real hate for, or horror of, the irrational. I couldn't help but read his comments I quoted above and think "I wonder what he'd make of say, surrealism". Someone who seems to want to actively deaden themselves to so much of human experience seems a bit, well, narrow.
 
 
Life Critic
17:55 / 22.11.06
as narrow as the view through the slit of a giant burka that stops us seeing the entire electromagnetic spectrum, dawkins metaphor of choice for the narrow band we as humans can observe.
this is the burka that science allows us to throw off, he reckons.
we can now 'see' all the way to gamma rays!
the chap with the question he ignored was asking about the same as you, eggs.
he talked of dawkins own narrowness of view through the slit in his own 'burka of reason', or something.



(sheesh! i felt the metaphor was clunky when he used it, and it feels way more clunky when trying to use it.)
 
 
Supaglue
18:10 / 22.11.06
It doesn't really get much more coldly logical than eugenics.

That said, it's a tricky subject to disentangle from it's past. It's certainly in use today in the form of 'liberal' reprogenetic advances popping up in things like PGD
 
 
Dead Megatron
(prev. Dance to the Beat)
13:19 / 23.11.06
But religion is uniquely equipped to answer certain questions on which science is silent, e.g. Who are we? Why are we here? How are we to behave?

i think you mistake philosophy for religion.

Religion, I'd say, is a lot of mitology with a little philosophy in it ("magick" in general aside)
 
 
Quantum
(prev. Quantum - terribly nonplussed)
20:06 / 23.11.06
Religion, I'd say, is a lot of mitology with a little philosophy in it

(I'm assuming you mean mythology there) I'd disagree with that I'm afraid. That little bit of philosophy is Theology I think you'll find.

I like Dawkins, but that God Delusion book puzzles me- what is it for? A defence of atheism? Unless you're in the States it seems alive and well, nobody's claiming atheism doesn't exist are they? The refutation of the proofs of Himself seems a bit late to me, and this whole science vs. religion thing is surely hackneyed.
If it's aimed at confounding the fundamentalist american right wing christians pushing I.D. then I can't see how he's going to sway them with this book, and people who aren't already seem to be aware that atheism is a valid choice. If there were proof of God's existence it might have made the headlines by now you'd think.

Dawkins ain't as hott as Bucky;

 
 
Father Mirror
20:31 / 23.11.06
I like Dawkins, but that God Delusion book puzzles me- what is it for? A defence of atheism? Unless you're in the States it seems alive and well, nobody's claiming atheism doesn't exist are they?

Well, considering that according to most of the polls that I've read atheists make up less than 4% of the population and are widely perceived to be less trustworthy than anyone of any religious faith, I'd say that atheism is in need of some defence.
 
 
Dead Megatron
(prev. Dance to the Beat)
20:56 / 23.11.06

(I'm assuming you mean mythology there)

(you assume correctly tere)
 
 
Quantum
(prev. Quantum - terribly nonplussed)
21:11 / 23.11.06
Which polls are these? Is that worldwide or U.S. or what? The figures I can find suggest that there's plenty- Israel is 25% atheist for example.

31 - 44% in Britain, but the figures are for unblievers rather than self-identified Atheists-
For example, in Estonia in 2004, 49% of people surveyed said they did not believe in God. At the same time, only 11% of people in the country identified themselves as atheists.

Conversely, in the UK Christians account for about 15% pop.(Data from 1992 shows that only 14.4% of the UK population belong to a Christian denomination ref.) and the number of US atheists has doubled since 1990 ref.
 
 
Life Critic
21:58 / 23.11.06
dawkins himself has cited the lack of 'out' aethists in political office as a motivating influence.

he thinks, reasonably, that aethists should as represented among the powerful as they are among the rest of the population.
 
 
Lurid Archive
23:00 / 23.11.06
I'm not sure that atheism is really in need of defence, though you might be able to make a case for US atheists. This wikipedia page has some info, in particular to a study I remember reading here.

From the article,

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.


The wikipedia article also quotes some state constitutions that make it a requirement to acknowledge a vague deity in order to hold public office. I don't think it is that big a deal, since atheists don't have a chance of getting elected in the US if I understand the political climate correctly, but it should be an outrage to formally discriminate against a group in this way.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
00:03 / 24.11.06
On the other hand, the Merkins don't expect the Head of State to be, of necessity, Head of their established Church. And nobody gets a seat in the Senate just because they're Bishops. Dawkins has a job to do here too.
 
 
Whisky Priestess
00:50 / 24.11.06
Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Brilliant. Including gays and lesbians, whom their children will not be allowed to marry?

Oh, my America, my new-found land ...
 
 
Dead Megatron
(prev. Dance to the Beat)
01:42 / 24.11.06
Funny, speaking as a (somewhat loose) Catholic, I'd love to find a loop whole* out of this marriage thingy. Guess we are, strangely, the only ones, eh?


(not aiming at discrediting gay marriage activism, just pointing out the irony, btw)



* is this the correct expression?
 
 
Wristwatch Nuke
10:03 / 24.11.06
Well, considering that according to most of the polls that I've read atheists make up less than 4% of the population and are widely perceived to be less trustworthy than anyone of any religious faith

That's why no-one will lend me money.
 
 
Y SO ALT?
(prev. Tamara Willett Hurt)
12:55 / 24.11.06
I don't understand the irony, Dead Megatron. Could you explain it to me?
 
 
petunia
14:26 / 24.11.06
I think Mr Tron is referring to the fact that marriage is somewhat expected in a catholic society.
This means that many catholics are seeking to avoid marriage.
This is the opposite situation to that of many people who are seeking the right to marry in their society.
Thus. Irony.
 
 
Whisky Priestess
14:37 / 24.11.06
Well, DM, there's always the priesthood ...
 
 
Dead Megatron
(prev. Dance to the Beat)
15:34 / 24.11.06
I don't understand the irony, Dead Megatron. Could you explain it to me?

.trampetunia explained it perfectly. Also, it was a reference to the fact atheists, who in theory should not care about the religious aspects of marriage, are frowned upon as "not-marriage material" by the religious marrying people

Well, DM, there's always the priesthood ...

yeah, but I live in a tropical country, and those heavy black robes and collars just seem... so sweaty
 
 
velvetvandal
(prev. asyetunidentified 3rd vandal)
00:35 / 26.11.06
Yeah, I thought the last chapter, with 'teh biggest burqa evar! 1!' analogy was pretty bad. I was like, eh? I think he was too enamoured of his metaphor, thinking (like some kind of rubbish poet) that he had came up with a genius image to convey both his dislike of organised religion and the idea of how little of the spectrum we get to see...when it fact its one flaw, to quote Blackadder, E., was that it...was...bollocks.

Had I seen him use it in a lecture, I have a horrible feeling that I - a qualified teacher, published writer, and psychology student - would wind up asking 'so...like...is this sort of like Jordi LaForge's visor, then?' before getting my coat.
 
 
Life Critic
02:09 / 26.11.06
the other thing is how offensive the image is, that of ripping off a burka, to someone who would wear a burka.

his entire body of work is quite offensive as it is, and necessarily so. if he's out to disprove religion he's bound to offend. there would appear to be no shortage of provocative and potentially offensive material available to him that he must use, and it seems gratuitous to throw more wood on an already raging fire.

making snide cracks about practices he dissaproves of is hardly helpful, and the image of him tearing off someone's burka 'With SC1ENCE!!' sits rather harshly.

i think perhaps another problem i have is that it feels like more of an attack on the wearer than the practice.
 
 
velvetvandal
(prev. asyetunidentified 3rd vandal)
10:46 / 26.11.06
the image of him tearing off someone's burka 'With SC1ENCE!!'

The Taliban will tremble when they face Doctor Dawkins and his burqa-removing ray!
 
 
Life Critic
19:11 / 26.11.06
the apocalypse of dr disrobia!
in glorious non-visible-wavelengths!
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply