Video Flagged Dead

Religious discussion on The Sunday Edition (ITV1)

siftbotsays...

Saving this video from queue deletion, sending it to the top of the queue for one more try. Originally submitted on Sunday 24th December 2006 (save called by gold star member benjee)

mitirapasays...

That guy just dosen't get it that science was never, and is not, meant to be a replacement to religion. Yes, science dosen't provide a moral philosophy, but Dawkins's whole argument about 'cherry-picking' is that neither does the Bible.

imstellar28says...

Wow Dawkins is a genius, he just proved that the Bible provides no moral code to society. Its not explicit, but as Dawkins mentions the very act of "cherry-picking" that people do with the bible--that is they choose to believe in the "good" parts and ignore the "bad" parts is a moral code in itself independent of the bible.

Most proponents of religion when backed into a corner always respond with...well...so maybe God doesn't exist but at least religion provides instruction for people on how to live good lives, but Dawkins has effortlessly proved this false!

For those interested in Dawkins or religion/evolution read "The Blind Watchmaker" its a brilliant book that I guarantee will open your eyes at least a couple times per chapter.

BoneyDsays...

Thanks for the save benjee! <3
Yes, I was quite happy to hear that when he pointed it out. It's nice to know it's something built-in to our very nature. Sort of empowering, eh?

siftbotsays...

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.

chilaxesays...

It's not true that science doesn't teach us values.


"[Science], which has transformed the world in the last few centuries, does indeed teach values. Those values, among others, are honesty, doubt, respect for evidence, openness, accountability and tolerance and indeed hunger for opposing points of view.

Nobody appeared in a cloud of smoke and taught scientists these virtues. This behavior simply evolved because it worked."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/science/27essa.html

shuacsays...

Who said anything about values? I believe they were discussing moral guidance. Neither religion nor science teach moral guidance but only science makes the claim of never trying to.

gwiz665says...

I would argue that these are not moral values, but of course you are right - they are values in the way that they are methods with which to perceive and act in the world. Chiefly above all the points you quoted stands truth. The rest springs from there. The great scientific value is that truth = good. If you disregard truth, you are not being scientific. Other than that, I wouldn't say that science judges any action like a religion does: "X is WRONG/bad" or "Y is RIGHT/good".

>> ^chilaxe:
It's not true that science doesn't teach us values.


"[Science], which has transformed the world in the last few centuries, does indeed teach values. Those values, among others, are honesty, doubt, respect for evidence, openness, accountability and tolerance and indeed hunger for opposing points of view.
Nobody appeared in a cloud of smoke and taught scientists these virtues. This behavior simply evolved because it worked."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/science/27essa.html




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

>> ^bluecliff:
how can you trust anyone who visits these horrible little shows, makes me sick

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More