*philosophy

I love this talk. I find that some atheists can be just as dogmatic and invasive in imposing their point of view as any evangelical. This guy has it nailed.

Adding video to channels (Philosophy) - requested by bareboards2.

What bull.

Why settle for Fools gold when you can have the real thing.

>> ^bareboards2:

philosophy
I love this talk. I find that some atheists can be just as dogmatic and invasive in imposing their point of view as any evangelical. This guy has it nailed.


There were some interesting ideas, but mostly I wasn't impressed.

He opens by talking about the "kind of atheist that likes christmas carols". So, for example, RichardDawkins?

He then talks about how we can use the "tools of religion" to make our lives better. He's essentially talking about 2 things, community and indoctrination.

Community, I think we can all agree happens easily without religion. Just look at this site. For a more real world example, last years earthquake in my home town saw groups of people coming together to dig out liquefaction from each others houses.

Indoctrination, on the other hand, I can live without.

As for the sense of mysticism or wonder, again that's not an issue I worry about. On this site alone there are hundreds of videos that talk about a secular sense of wonder about the universe (pretty much anything with Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Brian Cox). At a more local level, that "sense of belonging to something bigger" comes back to community for me. Whether that's a group of friends, a city trying to rebuild itself, or even in the larger sense that we all inhabit the same rock flying through space.

I keep making the same comment on videos about religion and no fundamentalist atheist has intelligently responded to my point.

Humans have evolved with the need for religion, some portion of humanity. It has survived the evolutionary process. THEREFORE there must be some purpose or use for it, for some portion of humanity.

I find it galling in the extreme to read over and over again the chastisements of atheists dismissing a belief in God as being stupid and irrational.

The human need and ability to create the divine MUST HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. Scorning and scolding people about an ingrained, evolutionarily chosen trait is ignorant and rude and no different from evangelicals, those who have that trait in spades, forcing their beliefs onto others.

I do not believe in an intelligent force in the universe, guiding everything. The doctrines and specific myths told by religions ... I personally do not understand how folks can believe these things to be factually true.

But millions do. Millions have. There must be some need for it and it is NOT MY PLACE to tell someone else to abandon something that gives structure and solace.

Just stay out of the laws of the land.

That is why I like this vid so much. It shows the human need for ... something... without it being doctrinaire.

And Richard Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. He is just a loud one, @ChaosEngine.

I think most atheists would agree with you, that religion has served an evolutionary purpose. I don't have "The God Delusion" with me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins acknowledges that as well.

But whether or not it serves an evolutionary purpose or not is irrelevant. The appendix served an evolutionary purpose - then we evolved to do without it. The same goes for the wisdom teeth; most people have them removed because they can cause huge problems, but in a world without dental care they are incredibly important.

Most of us atheists believe it is time, at least in the west, to "evolve" beyond the need for an invisible sky-daddy. We have the opportunity to do with religion what evolution did for the appendix.

Belief in a god is irrational. That's not to say it didn't serve a purpose, as evolution is not bound by the rational, only by phenotypic fitness. But, religion has served its purpose and, like the appendix or the wisdom teeth, it's time it was removed from our lives.
>> ^bareboards2:

I keep making the same comment on videos about religion and no fundamentalist atheist has intelligently responded to my point.
Humans have evolved with the need for religion, some portion of humanity. It has survived the evolutionary process. THEREFORE there must be some purpose or use for it, for some portion of humanity.
I find it galling in the extreme to read over and over again the chastisements of atheists dismissing a belief in God as being stupid and irrational.
The human need and ability to create the divine MUST HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. Scorning and scolding people about an ingrained, evolutionarily chosen trait is ignorant and rude and no different from evangelicals, those who have that trait in spades, forcing their beliefs onto others.
I do not believe in an intelligent force in the universe, guiding everything. The doctrines and specific myths told by religions ... I personally do not understand how folks can believe these things to be factually true.
But millions do. Millions have. There must be some need for it and it is NOT MY PLACE to tell someone else to abandon something that gives structure and solace.
Just stay out of the laws of the land.
That is why I like this vid so much. It shows the human need for ... something... without it being doctrinaire.
And Richard Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. He is just a loud one, @ChaosEngine.

>> ^bareboards2:

I keep making the same comment on videos about religion and no fundamentalist atheist has intelligently responded to my point.
Humans have evolved with the need for religion, some portion of humanity. It has survived the evolutionary process. THEREFORE there must be some purpose or use for it, for some portion of humanity.
I find it galling in the extreme to read over and over again the chastisements of atheists dismissing a belief in God as being stupid and irrational.
The human need and ability to create the divine MUST HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. Scorning and scolding people about an ingrained, evolutionarily chosen trait is ignorant and rude and no different from evangelicals, those who have that trait in spades, forcing their beliefs onto others.
I do not believe in an intelligent force in the universe, guiding everything. The doctrines and specific myths told by religions ... I personally do not understand how folks can believe these things to be factually true.
But millions do. Millions have. There must be some need for it and it is NOT MY PLACE to tell someone else to abandon something that gives structure and solace.
Just stay out of the laws of the land.
That is why I like this vid so much. It shows the human need for ... something... without it being doctrinaire.
And Richard Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. He is just a loud one, @ChaosEngine.


I used Dawkins as an example simply because he has the reputation of being the "most strident fundamentalist atheist" (whatever that is). In fact, he actually attempts to answer your question in the God Delusion. You'll have to read it for the full explanation but (paraphrasing here) it boils down to the idea that religion evolved as a combination of a few evolutionary traits, such as believing your parents and ascribing intent to occurrences. There's a whole chapter on the roots of religion there (from an evolutionary point of view), and it is explained far better than I could here.

Cool. So move on, right? To argue against biology so stridently is tiresome.

AND keep on fighting to keep religion out of the laws.

AND keep on educating the general public that religion is a choice -- I often thought that the most strident anti-religion atheists are those who were most scarred by the worst aspects of it. That theirs is an emotional battle on behalf of those trapped in households where religion is presented as THE ONLY CHOICE. And if you aren't someone who has that "religion gene", that can be crazy making.

I love all the billboards that atheists are starting to put up. I see them as lifelines to children and adults who don't believe and feel shame. Like being homosexual -- if you are gay in a fundamentalist household, stay in the closet until you are an adult and then MOVE AWAY. It is the only rational choice.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^

I used Dawkins as an example simply because he has the reputation of being the "most strident fundamentalist atheist" (whatever that is). In fact, he actually attempts to answer your question in the God Delusion. You'll have to read it for the full explanation but (paraphrasing here) it boils down to the idea that religion evolved as a combination of a few evolutionary traits, such as believing your parents and ascribing intent to occurrences. There's a whole chapter on the roots of religion there (from an evolutionary point of view), and it is explained far better than I could here.

>> ^bareboards2:

Cool. So move on, right? To argue against biology so stridently is tiresome.
AND keep on fighting to keep religion out of the laws.
AND keep on educating the general public that religion is a choice -- I often thought that the most strident anti-religion atheists are those who were most scarred by the worst aspects of it. That theirs is an emotional battle on behalf of those trapped in households where religion is presented as THE ONLY CHOICE. And if you aren't someone who has that "religion gene", that can be crazy making.
I love all the billboards that atheists are starting to put up. I see them as lifelines to children and adults who don't believe and feel shame. Like being homosexual -- if you are gay in a fundamentalist household, stay in the closet until you are an adult and then MOVE AWAY. It is the only rational choice.

First I don't believe to argue against religion is to argue against biology. Religion is an evolved sociological trait, rather than a strictly biological one. But even if that weren't true, there are any number of biological traits that, while potentially advantageous in a strictly evolutionary fashion, we regard as abhorrent. Males are genetically predisposed to copulate with as many females as they can, and to fight off rivals. Neither of these traits are well regarded in modern society.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, so apologies if I am misinterpreting you, but the first part of your post seems to contradict the second part. Could you clarify?

That biological imperative to reproduce may be abhorrent, but it still lives pretty strong in some men and women. Monogamy isn't natural for everyone. Some folks just can't do it. To pretend otherwise leads to heartbreak. Let's be honest about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/20/the-gingrich-question-cheating-vs-open-marriage/voters-prefer-newt-gingrichs-adultery-to-open-marriage

Not sure why you find a disconnect between anything I have said, so I don't know how to clarify. Perhaps we can discuss this on our profile page? If you can be more specific about what doesn't add up? I think I am logically consistent.



>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^bareboards2:
Cool. So move on, right? To argue against biology so stridently is tiresome.
AND keep on fighting to keep religion out of the laws.
AND keep on educating the general public that religion is a choice -- I often thought that the most strident anti-religion atheists are those who were most scarred by the worst aspects of it. That theirs is an emotional battle on behalf of those trapped in households where religion is presented as THE ONLY CHOICE. And if you aren't someone who has that "religion gene", that can be crazy making.
I love all the billboards that atheists are starting to put up. I see them as lifelines to children and adults who don't believe and feel shame. Like being homosexual -- if you are gay in a fundamentalist household, stay in the closet until you are an adult and then MOVE AWAY. It is the only rational choice.
First I don't believe to argue against religion is to argue against biology. Religion is an evolved sociological trait, rather than a strictly biological one. But even if that weren't true, there are any number of biological traits that, while potentially advantageous in a strictly evolutionary fashion, we regard as abhorrent. Males are genetically predisposed to copulate with as many females as they can, and to fight off rivals. Neither of these traits are well regarded in modern society.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, so apologies if I am misinterpreting you, but the first part of your post seems to contradict the second part. Could you clarify?

>> ^bareboards2:

That biological imperative to reproduce may be abhorrent, but it still lives pretty strong in some men and women. Monogamy isn't natural for everyone. Some folks just can't do it. To pretend otherwise leads to heartbreak. Let's be honest about it.

The biological imperative to reproduce isn't abhorrent at all. What I was specifically referring to (in an admittedly oblique way) was the instinct in males to copulate with females regardless of their wishes. As utterly vile as we regard, rape is common in the natural world.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't think you can force evolution. It isn't a choice. Not unless you start breeding programs.

Want the biological need for the divine to go away? Sterilize all religious folks. I don't think you can talk folks out of it.

I speak from experience. My brother is a retired Air Force pilot with a Master's degree in aerospace engineering. Grew up in a secular household. His need for structure and the divine led him to the Mormon Church. Talk about goofy beliefs!! Good lord! And he voluntarily turned off his reasoning brain to accept all their nonsense as true. You say religion has "served its purpose." So why did he go there, when he wasn't indoctrinated into it growing up?

Not for me to tell him not to take comfort where he takes comfort.

However, it is for me to tell him to back off on gay marriage and not impose his church's beliefs on others. (And to tell him that when the church's membership starts falling, I guarantee his Prophet will suddenly hear from God that it is okay to be gay now.)


>> ^Skeeve:

I think most atheists would agree with you, that religion has served an evolutionary purpose. I don't have "The God Delusion" with me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins acknowledges that as well.
But whether or not it serves an evolutionary purpose or not is irrelevant. The appendix served an evolutionary purpose - then we evolved to do without it. The same goes for the wisdom teeth; most people have them removed because they can cause huge problems, but in a world without dental care they are incredibly important.
Most of us atheists believe it is time, at least in the west, to "evolve" beyond the need for an invisible sky-daddy. We have the opportunity to do with religion what evolution did for the appendix.
Belief in a god is irrational. That's not to say it didn't serve a purpose, as evolution is not bound by the rational, only by phenotypic fitness. But, religion has served its purpose and, like the appendix or the wisdom teeth, it's time it was removed from our lives.
>>

I think you have dug to the heart of our disagreement.

First, you repeatedly state that religion is biological. I think that is partly accurate, but it's not that simple. I think religion itself is memetic, but the need to believe in something is biological. Religion is a symptom of our evolutionary need to believe/explain what we don't understand.

As for not being able to force evolution, we've been doing that - consciously or unconsciously - for thousands of years. While sterilizing the religious and only allowing atheists to breed might be one solution, I think the proper course is education combined with laws separating religion from the government.

While education doesn't work 100% of the time (as your example points out), it is pretty clear that those with more education have less religion. Nations with better education systems have less religious adherence and individuals with higher educations tend to have less religion. And the key words in those sentences are "less religion"; it doesn't mean less belief, it just re-aims that belief from religion to rational thought/science/etc.

Education is to religion as the scalpel is to the appendix - it removes the evolved, no longer useful, but still dangerous, problem.

With regards to it not being right to tell someone not to take comfort in that which comforts them, I partly agree. If it isn't harming anyone else, then I don't care what someone believes and I'm not going to get in their face about it (if they try to convert me though, they have opened the door and are fair game). But the line is drawn when someone's beliefs harm or pose a threat to the well-being of others. In that case, anyone who opposes equal rights (whether for homosexuals, women, non-religious) are fair game.

The issue I struggle with personally is the indoctrination of children. Having experienced that personally, knowing how that limited me (and harmed me, in some ways) I have difficulty allowing the indoctrination of children to go uncontested. But that's a different problem for another discussion


>> ^bareboards2:

We'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't think you can force evolution. It isn't a choice. Not unless you start breeding programs.
Want the biological need for the divine to go away? Sterilize all religious folks. I don't think you can talk folks out of it.
I speak from experience. My brother is a retired Air Force pilot with a Master's degree in aerospace engineering. Grew up in a secular household. His need for structure and the divine led him to the Mormon Church. Talk about goofy beliefs!! Good lord! And he voluntarily turned off his reasoning brain to accept all their nonsense as true. You say religion has "served its purpose." So why did he go there, when he wasn't indoctrinated into it growing up?
Not for me to tell him not to take comfort where he takes comfort.
However, it is for me to tell him to back off on gay marriage and not impose his church's beliefs on others. (And to tell him that when the church's membership starts falling, I guarantee his Prophet will suddenly hear from God that it is okay to be gay now.)

>> ^Skeeve:
I think most atheists would agree with you, that religion has served an evolutionary purpose. I don't have "The God Delusion" with me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins acknowledges that as well.
But whether or not it serves an evolutionary purpose or not is irrelevant. The appendix served an evolutionary purpose - then we evolved to do without it. The same goes for the wisdom teeth; most people have them removed because they can cause huge problems, but in a world without dental care they are incredibly important.
Most of us atheists believe it is time, at least in the west, to "evolve" beyond the need for an invisible sky-daddy. We have the opportunity to do with religion what evolution did for the appendix.
Belief in a god is irrational. That's not to say it didn't serve a purpose, as evolution is not bound by the rational, only by phenotypic fitness. But, religion has served its purpose and, like the appendix or the wisdom teeth, it's time it was removed from our lives.
>>

I already tell anybody with half a wit that I'm a "Christian Atheist". (didn't watch vid yet).

Religion provides hope in the absence of fact. That's why it has existed throughout recorded history, because everyone has always needed some form of hope, and the fabrication of a deity who can provide this hope has always been the easy answer.

This guy is full of false dichotomies and pretension. First, the whole "ritual" and "community" things are not specific to religion. Look at the art world, school, family life: all full of ritual. And the point about community has already been made above. Second, no one will look down on an atheist who likes aspects of culture and human thought/production linked to religion, be they architectural, textual or other.

He starts with the premise that it's the norm to know that believing in deities is non-sense and no-one does, and those who do do no harm. Well bullocks. The reason people are loud about arguing against superstitious beliefs is because they have dire consequences, especially when they are indoctrinated into vulnerable child minds who cannot oppose them (because not testable nor evidence-based). And that is a danger to humanity, period.

As for thinking about things, as it said above, education should take the place of giving people knowledge and material to be in awe of (e.g. anything by Carl Sagan) and philosophise about. The only reason the evangelicals/pentacostalists are convincing is because they are preaching to a crowd of indoctrinated sheep, making a conscious effort to bypass any critical thought. I think it would be terrible to "preach" that Shakespeare is wonderful. No. Live it. Learn to appreciate it critically. Or dislike it, but know why. And no, propaganda is never good. It is trying to imprint a message onto you without you questioning. No matter how "good" a message is, it should be up to the receiver to critically receive it, and accept/reject it based on their critical appraisal thereof.

Ugh, this guy annoyed me.

@bareboards2 Just because it has survived evolution does not mean that it serves an evolutionary purpose. Things can be vestigial, even ideas. This maxim may or may not apply to the religion debate.

The way I see it is religion is perfectly rational insofar as it provides answers to questions we cant seem to answer but it is not reasonable as the premises and conclusions defy the same logic that enables us to have cohesive ideas. It is just a matter of how much reason one has or is willing to surrender for comfort. The new atheists appear to have no tolerance for surrendering reason.

>> ^Kofi:

@bareboards2 Just because it has survived evolution does not mean that it serves an evolutionary purpose.

I wanted to second this statement. If a trait is useful to a species for its set of circumstances and surroundings, that trait should survive or even thrive via the evolution process. One can not reverse this relationship and say that because a trait survived the evolution process, it is useful. That completely ignores the circumstances and surroundings which in themselves define which are advantageous traits or traits that lessen the chance of survival. Of course, there might be some traits that don't make a different (again defined by the specific species' set of circumstances and surroundings.)

i didnt see anything new in this talk.
what he is talking about is humanism.
and an atheist can also be a humanist.
its like jesus lite.but without the jesus.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/19/alain-de-botton-is-right-about-one-thing/

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Alain-de-Botton-on-Pessimism

Alain de Botton on Pessimism has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.