Intresting discussion with Dawkins

[Pawn Power]

Here is short (23 min) discussion with Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting of the guardian.

This is an intresting disscusion, wether you agree or not with Dawkins' approach to religion, in which a couple new (to me at least), or at least slightly modified, critiques of his work are put forth which he gives well pointed responsed.

podcast:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/audio/2008/feb/14/richard.dawkins

[Gobythebear]

When it comes to religion I find it hard to disagree with Dawkins.

[Bandito]

I don't see how Dawkin's beliefs can be posted in Opposing ideologies subforum.
He is the one of the most brilliant scientists of today,no question about it.

[Dean]

I don't see how Dawkin's beliefs can be posted in Opposing ideologies subforum.
He is the one of the most brilliant scientists of today,no question about it.

It's not amark against Dawkins, but religion. Still, Dawkins is not a leftist revolutionary by any means.

[Bandito]

No.
But,today,he made more leftists than any other figure.
Maybe Chomsky,but his followers are weak and don't last long as leftsists.
Dawkins is a scientist,he do what he does best.
Militant atheism is one of the ways to create future revolutionary thought,and that is why i think of him as a revolutionary. He isn't,but his effects are.

[LSD]

Dawkins is, of course, spot on when it comes to creationism and religion, but some of his more "expansive" conclusions are controversial to say the least. His "animal rights" stance, for instance, and many of his "psychological" opinions are, frankly, reactionary to their core; but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have some useful things to say.

He's certainly one of the pre-eminant evolutionary biologists and, again, there's nothing wrong with encouraging people to confront his deconstructions of "faith". :)

[Bandito]

Darwin's bulldog...
what else you can say:)

[Dean]

No.
But,today,he made more leftists than any other figure.
Atheism and evolutionary rationality don't equate to leftism. That's simply scientific reason, not political enlightenment.


Maybe Chomsky,but his followers are weak and don't last long as leftsists.
What? Chomsky's writings on foreign policy were one of the main factors that made me so interested in that aspect of communism, and about changing the world today. I don't see how Chomsky's literature "doesn't create lasting leftists". That, to me, requires evidence to even mention.


Dawkins is a scientist,he do what he does best.
Einstein was too, that didn't stop him from being a revolutionary leftist.


Militant atheism is one of the ways to create future revolutionary thought,and that is why i think of him as a revolutionary. He isn't,but his effects are.
No, it's not. This is like saying "believing in global warming will create a leftist revolution." Perhaps, these trends will spread rationality and scientific reason, but I've seen plenty of libertarian atheists. They certainly aren't revolutionary, at least not in any good way.

[EwokUtopia]

No.
Maybe Chomsky,but his followers are weak and don't last long as leftsists.

Weak?? In what way? I was not aware that Chomsky carried some physical deficiency to his followers.

Seriously though, what the hell do you mean by "weak"?

[Bandito]

Ok,you guys missunderstood me,and i blame my weak knowledge of english for that.
What i meant about Chomsky i told from my perspective of knowing people who were interested in PARECON because of him,and then changed their beliefs tagging them as utopian. Noam was also my grow-up figure,so we don't have to desput that.


Perhaps, these trends will spread rationality and scientific reason,

That is exactly what i had in mind. I don't see Dawkins as the next leader,even thinking of that would be foolish. What i said was that(militant atheist) opinion creates a very good base for revolutionary thought.


They certainly aren't revolutionary, at least not in any good way.
Sometimes a reactionary thought build up while the person is VERY young creates a good leftist after his knowledge grows and he/she finds out what was wrong in his early opinion.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

dawkins is a rightwing ultra darwinist. please, he's no leftist, and totally reductionist.

his criticism of religion is full of straw man arguments, and does not understand the social dynamics that go on.

[EwokUtopia]

dawkins is a rightwing ultra darwinist. please, he's no leftist, and totally reductionist.

his criticism of religion is full of straw man arguments, and does not understand the social dynamics that go on.

We dont love him for spreading the truth of Atheism and such. We love him because he is a lovable dick who pisses the Christian-types off, quite humourously at that.

[Bandito]

We dont love him for spreading the truth of Atheism and such. We love him because he is a lovable dick who pisses the Christian-types off, quite humourously at that.

Than you love Dawkins in the same way you love Satanists?

[The Feral Underclass]

That interview reaffirms how irrational and confused people who have religious faith are. That women was totally ridiculous in her opinions. She was totally incoherent and seemingly proud of it. Religion is just so mind-bogglingly farcical in every possible, that woman was evidence of it.

[The Feral Underclass]

dawkins is a rightwing ultra darwinist. please, he's no leftist, and totally reductionist.

Arguing that we should disregard an aspect of someone's belief or work on the basis that they have unrelated opinions which are suspect is incredibly naive.

[EwokUtopia]

Than you love Dawkins in the same way you love Satanists?

No, I love Satanists in the same way as I love WOW addicts. Their pathetic uber-geekiness brings a smile to my face.

[Dean]

That is exactly what i had in mind. I don't see Dawkins as the next leader,even thinking of that would be foolish. What i said was that(militant atheist) opinion creates a very good base for revolutionary thought.
I disagree. Perhaps, where religion is a domineering factor in every part of a person's life (like nations in the middle east) it would be true. But the western practice of religion is not, generally, something that dangerous. In fact, I think militant atheism can lead to very sadistic, right-wing ideologies. Consider the ideas postulated it this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-supernaturalism-t70122/index.html

Would militant opposition to such religious ideas really be beneficial?


Sometimes a reactionary thought build up while the person is VERY young creates a good leftist after his knowledge grows and he/she finds out what was wrong in his early opinion.
Maybe. But still, atheism in and of itself doesnt' seem to me to be a rational basis for leftist thought. A part of positive leftist though, sure, but certainly not the fundamentals.

[Dean]

dawkins is a rightwing ultra darwinist. please, he's no leftist, and totally reductionist.

his criticism of religion is full of straw man arguments, and does not understand the social dynamics that go on.
While his criticism of religion is base, and his politics aren't that great, I don't think you can ignore all he has done for evolutionary science in particular. He is a distinguished thinker, if not particularly progressive.

[Demogorgon]

It is crazy to presume that people like Dawkins are going to do anything for socialism. He might bring about more atheists, but that will do nothing to bring about more leftists. Atheism does not lead to socialism in any way.

Socialism however does rather often lead to atheism, rejection of establishment ideology allows for the assessment of religion free from the thinking that can lead people to respect it, but it is a one way street.

As for Dawkins' arguments for atheism, they aren't even terribly good as these things go. Undoubtedly he is a good biologist, but he isn't much of a philosopher. Some of his points are not bad, and he can usually come up with a reasonable answer to arguments for the existence of God, but there are better arguments out there. His arguments against religion (as an institution) however are pathetic. His political biases obviously stop him seeing religion as the societal phenomena it is and instead has to come up with ridiculous idealist arguments against it. We can do better than that.

[Bandito]

But the western practice of religion is not, generally, something that dangerous

Wrong,wrong,wrong and dangerous thinking.
I assume that by "western" you actually say "non-muslim".
People are missguided about religion and Dawkins is a teacher.
Take my country,Serbia,for example. Here there are NO atheist thinkers and NO evolutionary biologists that get media attention. Few years ago,serbian minister of education,made a scandal-she cancelled studying Darwin in schools. It caused an eruption in the world press,but no really effect in Serbia. Luckilly,few weeks later,Darwin was back in our sholl system.
That is what i had in mind. The people are ignorant. In schools today we have both biology and "veronauka"(religious orthodox-christian science). That is like having one course of mathematics that says 2+2=4 and one that says 2+2=1007.
And nobody is raising his voice about the matter.

AGAIN,i want to say that i DON't think of Dawkins as a revolutionary bcs that would be insane. I am just FOR educating people in evolutionary and atheist science. And i think having people who are raised in atheist point of view is better for future of society. Maybe if we had more atheist thinkers here,we wouldn't wage war against muslims in the '90's and we wouldn't bash bakeries held by islamic Albanians usind christianity as an excuse.
That's all.

[Dean]

Wrong,wrong,wrong and dangerous thinking.
I assume that by "western" you actually say "non-muslim".
People are missguided about religion and Dawkins is a teacher.
Take my country,Serbia,for example. Here there are NO atheist thinkers and NO evolutionary biologists that get media attention. Few years ago,serbian minister of education,made a scandal-she cancelled studying Darwin in schools. It caused an eruption in the world press,but no really effect in Serbia. Luckilly,few weeks later,Darwin was back in our sholl system.
That is what i had in mind. The people are ignorant. In schools today we have both biology and "veronauka"(religious orthodox-christian science). That is like having one course of mathematics that says 2+2=4 and one that says 2+2=1007.
And nobody is raising his voice about the matter.
No, I don't mean Christian. I am not drawing this on secular lines - I am talking about the heavily practiced religius activity in certain societies such as seen in the middle east, versus those societies which have reached the point where the only real god is money. In the U.S., the latter is the case, so even the extremely powerful religious groups tend to be very centered around the issue of money, rather than the issues that their religion focuses on. Compare this to the Taliban, your example, South American Catholicism, etc.


AGAIN,i want to say that i DON't think of Dawkins as a revolutionary bcs that would be insane. I am just FOR educating people in evolutionary and atheist science. And i think having people who are raised in atheist point of view is better for future of society. Maybe if we had more atheist thinkers here,we wouldn't wage war against muslims in the '90's and we wouldn't bash bakeries held by islamic Albanians usind christianity as an excuse.
That's all.
No, we would have a more clearly racist war against Arabs, becasue the whole issue boils down to "how do we split these people so that we can kill and suppress the Iraqis?". Religion itself is irrelevant; it's about power.

[Bandito]

Religion itself is irrelevant; it's about power.

Yes it is,it's always been.
But ppl who actually WAGE is,the soldiers know nothing but "Charlie" and "Iraqi"

[Bandito]

I am talking about the heavily practiced religius activity in certain societies such as seen in the middle east, versus those societies which have reached the point where the only real god is money. In the U.S., the latter is the case, so even the extremely powerful religious groups tend to be very centered around the issue of money, rather than the issues that their religion focuses on. Compare this to the Taliban, your example, South American Catholicism, etc.

I have to disagree. Religion in "third world" counrties are also about power and money. Every religion is. The practice of praying and preaching is different,but every religion is the same.
What you are trying to say is that religion in the USA is less dangerous than middle-eastern???

[Dean]

I have to disagree. Religion in "third world" counrties are also about power and money. Every religion is.
The Taliban killing people to keep young girls from going to school is about money? Note that I never spoke specifically of power, so that is besides the point.


The practice of praying and preaching is different,but every religion is the same.
What you are trying to say is that religion in the USA is less dangerous than middle-eastern???
Yes??? There are plenty of atheists who support the Iraq war and right-wing economic policies. Religion is not the driving force in U.S. politics; money is. Contrarily, the Iranian revolution was about religion, power and liberty. Not money. The Shia revolution in Iran was dangerous to the Shah. Religion and racism tend to be much more powerful motivators in nations with abject poverty, where they often take on more dangerous roles.

[Bandito]

Why are you restricted,again?

[Dean]

Why are you restricted,again?

I get asked this a lot; the claim is that I am a sexist. It's not true.

[Bandito]

Well now only i can claim is that you have double standards about religion.
I wouldn't know if you are a sexist.

[Dean]

Well now only i can claim is that you have double standards about religion.
Yeah, because you're the only person who thinks that.


I wouldn't know if you are a sexist.
Because I ahven't exemplified any bigotry, let alone sexism.