I need to keep better track of where I get my links. Someone recently pointed out that Richard Dawkins's 2-part documentary "Root of All Evil?" is on Google Video, but I can't remember who and I can't find it in my friends page. Anyway, here they are (about 50 minutes each): part 1 part 2

It's refreshing to hear someone take a strong stand against religion. Pretty much only Bill Maher does that, though I've also seen Alan Dershowitz in a debate on C-SPAN. Unfortunately it seems to be difficult to be an advocate against religion without sounding like a pompous jerk. I have a feeling Dawkins is not going to change anyone's mind, but maybe it will inspire someone else to figure out a better way to change people's minds.

See also Freeman Dyson's review of Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell (which I should put on my Amazon wish list before I forget). From a comment by [livejournal.com profile] lupoleboucher on [livejournal.com profile] zenspider's journal linked to by [livejournal.com profile] memegarden.

From: [identity profile] mshonle.livejournal.com


This Charlie Rose show interview with Dennett is also worth watching.

I blogged about both the special and the book in March.

From: [identity profile] dougo.livejournal.com


Thanks, I'll check that out tonight when I get home. I remember you mentioning it back then, but I never got around to grabbing the torrents (but I did watch that Survivor episode...). But someone else recently mentioned that it was on Google Video, which is a bit easier to deal with (although is kind of a pain in other ways).

From: [identity profile] llyrica.livejournal.com

faith does not have to be about not thinking


Personally, I find people who are hostile to all religion just as challenging to have intelligent conversations with as people who will only accept a religious viewpoint.

I'm not sure why you'd consider advocating against religion to be useful (well, you said refreshing, but I'm extrapolating here), but from your subject line I'm assuming you're talking about the sometimes-paradoxical relationship between reason & faith? On that count, I would think it would be more constructive and intelligent to advocate for integration of reason & science with faith than to advocate against religion wholesale.

I've never been really well-supplied with faith in anything; however, I know a lot of people I respect who have faith and reason in spades.

From: [identity profile] dougo.livejournal.com


The title is a quote from the documentary. Dawkins's thesis is (roughly) that faith and religion are detrimental to human society. You should probably watch the videos rather than have me try to summarize his position. I agree with most of what he says, but I think there are better arguments to be made than the ones he makes, and there are better ways to go about the debate than he does. But I'm not very good at making those arguments so I'm not going to go into them right now.

About integrating reason with faith: he interviews an Anglican priest who is very reasonable about things like evolution and gay marriage. He even admits that Mary was probably not a virgin, but says that the miracle of the resurrection is still a crucial part of Christianity. Dawkins makes a quip about how fundamentalists betray reason, but Anglicans betray both reason and faith. It's not much better than a quip, and I think it would be bad for atheists not to regard liberal Christians as allies, but he does have a point: accepting only a small number of things on faith is closer to reason, but it's still fundamentally incompatible with reason.

From: [identity profile] llyrica.livejournal.com


...accepting only a small number of things on faith is closer to reason, but it's still fundamentally incompatible with reason.

Hm. I think it's only incompatible if you're trying to do the job of the one with the other.

For example, I think most people would agree it's not reasonable for a scientist to personally verify each and every bit of already-widely-accepted scientific knowledge in great detail, so to some degree he or she takes 'on faith' that someone else got it right -- and it seems reasonable to do so. I would call that interaction of faith and reason compatible and functional.

On the other hand, if a scientist takes 'on faith' that another scientist got it right and refuses to examine and reinterpret in light of new and contradictary information, then I would characterize that as a person using faith without the help of reason, when reason is required. I would call this a less functional interaction of faith and reason, but I wouldn't say that this shows the two were incompatible.

I think this lack of healthy functioning is not limited to religion -- I think it's just part of how humans malfunction, as I've observied it in atheists and religious folk alike. And probably even in a few of us confused agnostic type.

From: [identity profile] mshonle.livejournal.com


I like what you say about scientists reasonably taking something "on faith" (e.g. assuming that the things outside of his or her area have been as thoroughly treated as within his or her area) and unreasonably taking something on faith (e.g. blindly accepting what someone says, no matter what new evidence is exposed).

But why limit that to just science? Isn't it a bit unreasonable for people to "have faith" in the Bible, even though it has repeatedly, clearly been demonstrated to be utterly false (e.g. the age of the earth, evolution, and even the origin of wheat)?

I have no problem with someone who interprets the bible metaphorically, particularly if it helps them with their life and they don't, say, abuse their children with it ("brush your teeth or you will burn in hell!").

From: [identity profile] llyrica.livejournal.com


I would not limit this principle to science in the least. I'm in agreement that one should apply it to religion & sprituality and merely meant by my example to disengage a little from any notion that blind faith is something 'only religious people do.'

Most biblical scholars of any weight and education acknowledge that the canonical biblical texts are a variety of things: some historical, some not.

I can't speak for anyone who would say they have faith in it in the sense of it all being literally true, as my own education about it included the principle that it was largely metaphorical, including Creation being a metaphor for Evolution (hence I find the whole Creationism versus Evolution argument quite bafflesome).

I don't personally find the belief that the Bible is *literally* true overall to be very reasonble, no. I don't know whether or not anyone I know holds this belief about it.

From: [identity profile] mshonle.livejournal.com


Trust me, there are plenty of people I've met who believe the bible literally. Like, everything. Jonah the Whale. Pillars of salt. Creationism. The whole pi times pi yards.

Most of these folks I met in Lubbock, Texas, part of the "bible belt." Theirs is a circular sense of faith: they believe in the bible because it's the word of God, and they believe in God because the bible says so. They are intelligent people, they are nice people, but you just can't hope to convince them otherwise of their literal interpretations.

But I suppose I'm not too surprised about this the least bit. Being a vegetarian for six years has shown me how easily people will just believe something only for the reason that everyone else around them believes the same thing. These beliefs don't hold up to reason. Yet society gives everyone a "get out of using reason free" card.

From: [identity profile] dougo.livejournal.com


I think those are two very different meanings for "faith". When I say that I "believe" that men landed on the moon, I'm just saying that I think it's probably true based on my experience of the trustworthiness of the textbooks and TV broadcasts that make the claim. This is not at all what I or Dawkins or Dennett is talking about when we talk about religious faith, which is the unquestioning acceptance of something as being absolutely true. That particular lack of critical thinking is where the danger lies.

From: [identity profile] llyrica.livejournal.com


I think we're in agreement that the unquestioning acceptance of something as absolutely true/lack of critical thinking is where the danger lies.

We may still be in disagreement as to whether or not this sort of blind faith is only found in religious individuals. I was merely trying to find an example outside of religion where this happens. I'll try to capture a more specific one in the wild someday soon, as I'm not coming up with a meaty one right now :)
.

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags