Theologians don't have expertise on law or moral philosophy? Dawkins is mistaken. That's pretty much what they do. However, Dawkins is a biologist. That hardly qualifies him to make the kinds of claims he does or to be regarded as an expert on anything other than biology.

Richard Dawkins is a Doctor of Philosophy in biology. Biologists study life whereas theologians study what people think of life.

sorry, knowledge, no matter how extensive, of rabbinic law or sharia is hardly what i would call expertise, especially such as to warrant involvement in discussions about stem cell research or some such other specifically scientific advancement.

Being an expert in theology is like being an expert on invisible pink unicorns.

"However, Dawkins is a biologist."

Sorry, but Dr.Dawkins is also a PhD in Philosophy, and professor of Ethology. Combining Philosophy, ethology and evolutionary biology is precisely what qualifies him to make these claims.

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

Religion should be an anachronism of a bygone era, it doesn't really contribute much to modern society, only detracts from progression. I'm not too sure why Americans are so insistent to cling on to religious tradition and influence. In other parts of the world such as Europe and Asia, the populations are shifting towards an atheist majority fairly rapidly. Only time will tell if America will follow trend, until then, we have to deal with the whack job creationists.

damn you Dawkins ruining my agnosticism! *shakes fist* I cant even bother telling my parents of my newfound atheism now.

Looks like the Dawkster is feeling a bit under the weather. I wish I could get him to talk to my own parents, especially the bit about comforting thoughts; Oprah™(plus her superfluous book club) and Dr.Phil's words have more sway with them than my own.

>> ^jwray:
Being an expert in theology is like being an expert on invisible pink unicorns.


Thank you! Jeez, nobody ever gives me credit in this area! Being an expert in IPU qualifies me to have the final word in ANY discussion but no one ever listens!

Why can't they just understand?

>> ^jwray:
Being an expert in theology is like being an expert on invisible pink unicorns.


as an expert in invisible pink unicorns, I take offense to this comment

Dawkins has little to offer beyond condemning religion as the main source of humanity's problems, which it isn't. A much larger universal problem of life is how to satisfy unlimited wants with scarce resources with alternative uses.

He might as well condemn pro-sports or tv shows as colossal wastes of time and resources. He'd still be right, since for millions of people those things have little or no meaning.

A religion-free world would still be chock full of wars and lesser violence, tribalism, racism, famine, greed, natural disasters, etc. A minority would still control the lion's share of the wealth in every society, though the dynamics of who stayed on top would be slightly different.

Dawkins is fine for the lab, but happiness is a serious moral issue, and science has no intrinsic morality.

Religion speaks to the heart, and ultimately the heart rules all, for better or worse.

>> ^volumptuous:
"However, Dawkins is a biologist."
Sorry, but Dr.Dawkins is also a PhD in Philosophy, and professor of Ethology. Combining Philosophy, ethology and evolutionary biology is precisely what qualifies him to make these claims.


Speaking as a student of philosophy, Dawkins is no philosopher. Daniel Dennett is, on the other hand, if you want an example of a prominent atheist/humanist philosopher opposed to religion.


I find all this animus toward religion to be just as misdirected as religious animus toward atheists. It is motivated by the exact same kind of disagreement and, frequently, lack of mutual understanding. Religion has a certain place in the human experience, and serves a certain purpose. If you get rid of religion, other institutions will step in to take up the slack. I have noticed that many atheists simply don't recognize this.

I also find it strange that people have the impression that, worldwide, religion is in decline. This is particularly strange given the role religion plays in the struggle between the Middle East and the West, which is perhaps the defining struggle of at least the last two decades, and could be the defining struggle of the century. Moreover, it also ignores the rapid increase of religiosity in areas like China, where Islam and Christianity are finally starting to make inroads in some areas.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Dawkins has little to offer beyond condemning religion as the main source of humanity's problems, which it isn't. A much larger universal problem of life is how to satisfy unlimited wants with scarce resources with alternative uses.

There's been a steady increase in average cognitive test scores over the last century, called the Flynn effect, that has been at least partially attributed to an increase in more people viewing the world through scientific spectacles.

There's reason for hope ( ) that continuing that trend can make many areas of society more efficient.

HadouKen24 -

Could you please expound on the purpose served by religion and describe what sorts of institutions would "take up the slack" were religion to wither away?

Just curious.

QM: A much larger universal problem of life is how to satisfy unlimited wants with scarce resources...

There's a solution to that: file sharing on the internet.
Reasonable people don't have unlimited wants of *physical* goods.

>> ^HadouKen24:
Moreover, it also ignores the rapid increase of religiosity in areas like China, where Islam and Christianity are finally starting to make inroads in some areas.


link
Though religiosity may be on the rise in some areas, in the top 30 or so countries on the HDI it's on the decline. As a percentage of the total population of Europe, atheism has increased more than Islam in the last 50 years.

>> ^quantumushroom:
A religion-free world would still be chock full of wars and lesser violence, tribalism, racism, famine, greed, natural disasters, etc. A minority would still control the lion's share of the wealth in every society, though the dynamics of who stayed on top would be slightly different.


Oh - my - Science...

I don't think I've ever heard Dawkins claim that religion is the main source of humanity problems. Dawkins is passionate and has the expertise to argue against religion. He does not have a whole lot of expertise, and he may not be particularly interested, in the fields of renewable energy, consumerism, capitalism, beef production, oil addiction, rainforest destruction etc.

A man might tune pianos for a living, and spend a lot of time complaining about poorly tuned pianos, but that doesn't imply that he thinks climate change is a less of a danger than untuned instruments. He's just doing what he's good at and trying to do his small part to make the world a more harmonious place.

I'm impressed by the amount of vitriol against religion on the Sift. I guess many of you haven't had the good fortune to be involved in moderate, religious activism. That is, activism that's about helping people less fortunate than ourselves without trying to whack them on the head with a crucifix. I'm a religious scientist. People here act as if the two are mutually exclusive, whereas they most certainly are not, Einstein being a notable example (not necessarily ascribing to an organized faith, but rather belief in a supreme diety.) Same with Brian Greene of string theory.
The people I worship with wear blue jeans, we play loud rock and roll music and we actively provide charity to Rwanda. When you lump Christians, Muslims, etc. into the same mold you display all the prejudice you rail against. Sorry, but true.

Religion, and it's current state, ironically, is just a step in evolution - that being the evolution of human thought. We'll be done with it someday, but that day won't be in our lifetime. Still, in order to move on, it is necessary to assail the foolishness of dogma and 'faith'.
And no, "getting rid" of religion won't solve the world's problems, as religion itself has been constructed by the human psyche, with it's tendency towards "security" and the need of correctness. Hence evolution of consciousness is the key...but such evolution can only be carried on by serious inquiry into ourselves - ie what we commonly accept without thought and has been conditioned into us.

>> ^snoozedoctor:
I'm impressed by the amount of vitriol against religion on the Sift. I guess many of you haven't had the good fortune to be involved in moderate, religious activism.

Actually, I was raised in a rather moderate/liberal branch of UCC.

People here act as if the two are mutually exclusive, whereas they most certainly are not, Einstein being a notable example (not necessarily ascribing to an organized faith, but rather belief in a supreme diety.)

Read the first chapter of the God Delusion. Einstein did not beleive in a personal god. Maybe you could describe his beliefs as pantheism, which definitely does not include the idea of prayer. As Carl Sagan said, it makes no sense to pray to the law of gravity.


Same with Brian Greene of string theory.

String Theory should be regarded as a pseudoscience until such time as it actually makes a testable prediction that differs from the standard model. String Theory reminds me of taking a beautiful formula and splitting it up into a fourier series.

Greene is a demagogue, getting so enthusiastic about popularizing an idea before there's actually any evidence for it.

The people I worship with wear blue jeans, we play loud rock and roll music and we actively provide charity to Rwanda.

I'll bet that a lot of members of the Flat Earth Society do too. If a larger percentage of Flat Earth Society members help Rwanda than the general public, does that justify promoting the belief that the Earth is flat? No. You have to distinguish between the sugar-coating and the bullshit at the core.

When you lump Christians, Muslims, Buddists, etc. into the same mold you display all the prejudice you rail against. Sorry, but true.

Buddhism is an agnostic philosophy, not really a religion.

The core problem that all religions posess is a reliance on faith, which is an epistemological vulnerability.

The core teachings of Buddhism recognize (even exaggerate) tentativeness of all knowledge, unlike the dogmas of almost every other religion.

I believe I clarified that Einstein's belief was of a deity, not of a structured religion. The same goes for Greene. I made no claim as to the validity of string theory, which I hold as highly suspect. It requires as much faith as any religion.

I realized the mistake on Buddhism, but was too lazy to go back and strike it out. But, good of you to refute it, as it needed refuting.

To describe faith as a vulnerability is sad in my opinion. I have faith in a great many things. I have faith in the innate goodness of man, despite so much evidence to the contrary. And why are we so moved by acts of kindness, generosity, and sacrifice? It is rather peculiar to our species, although most, I guess, would argue it evolved to further the species. Intelligence provides us that luxury. Molecules communicating complex abstract thought to other molecules until the molecules have enough collective knowledge to send some molecules to the moon. It is miraculous, regardless of your personal belief system.

Thomas Jefferson, who would have abhorred being called a "Christian" and certainly had no belief in the "supernatural" called Christian philosophy "the greatest ever devised by man." We all know he clipped the actual words, ascribed to Jesus, from the bible, deleted all reference to the supernatural and published his "Jeffersonian Bible." It is possible to separate the philosophy from the "religion" as he did and I think many moderates probably approach that.

Personally, I don't believe in divine intervention and I know that flies in the face of mainstream religion, whatever the brand. I also believe in evolution. But, I still marvel at that first replication. It's divine enough for me.

What I mean by faith being an epistemological vulnerability is this:

You should ask yourself, of every thing you think you know, "How do you know what you think you know?"
To have faith is leave that question unanswered but persist in the belief anyway.

Some people of faith may struggle with the question before discarding it, while others never bother to ask.

In practice, historically, faith has been the puppet-strings that allow clergy to control the masses.

Excellent.

Einstein.. "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

I believe he was speaking exactly to your point, while conveying his awe and wonder at the universe and its seeming "order." We all know his allusion to "God not playing dice with the universe," or whatever it was, I know those aren't the exact words.

Believe me, I've had the arguments with the creationists (in the sense of a fully developed modern man.) All you can say is, "what, are you crazy?" But I can't say that to the creationist who says it started at the Big Bang. I don't have enough info to refute that. At some point, it reaches the realm of faith, or simply "I have no idea." Either view is acceptable to me when you reach that far into the unknown.

It seems Einstein was mistaken when he said "God does not play dice". How else do you explain electrons interfering with themselves when passed through a double-slit one at a time?

Regarding what caused the big bang, nobody knows. At least scientists admit they don't know what caused the big bang. Most religious people (at least among those who are aware of the big bang) pretend to know that a god caused it. That's faith.

Socrates was on to something when he said (I paraphrase) the first step to knowledge is to admit you have a problem.

We know, in its context, his comment was made in regards to duality and probabilities. He was wrong. I wasn't using his quote in its historical sense, but rather as a shared view of remarkable symmetry in the universe.

>> ^volumptuous:
" Sorry, but Dr.Dawkins is also a PhD in Philosophy, and professor of Ethology. Combining Philosophy."

He has a PhD in Biology.
Just because the "P" stands for "Philosophiæ", doesn't mean he has a PhD in Philosophy.
He was a student of Tinbergen..

Still, as a proponent of, and expert in, the philosophy of science, he is qualified to discuss any social issue on which science bears light... which is pretty much everything these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Education_and_academic_career

PhDs in natural sciences are closer to the literal meaning of "Philosophy" (love of knowledge) while philosophy departments generally focus on the history of philosophy (covering all sorts of archaic nonsense from Socrates to Sartre while minimizing philosophers who actually did something worthwhile i.e. scientists and mathematicians, like Pythagoras, Isaac Newton, Bertrand Russell, and Thomas Jefferson). At Oxford there is a Classics course, and then there is a more useful and more rigorous version which discards the ancient bullshit, called modern classics or PPE. Dawkins got a PhD in zoology, which is a "hard science", unlike what often passes for Philosophy.

Reasonable people don't have unlimited wants of *physical* goods.

I state this from a certain point of view: I have yet to meet a "reasonable" person of the type you're describing. I know of no one, myself included, who doesn't desire greater wealth, health or personal happiness in varying degrees, if not for themselves then for others, first people they know and then the society around them.

Even when the basics of life are met a billion times over, there's an infinite number of intangibles: love, respect, hunger for recognition, self-importance, a little diamond with 500 on it. Why does Donald Trump get out of bed every morning to work? Have you seen his (latest) wife?

To me, an "atheist heaven" would be a world with Star-Trek level technology, where all of the basics (food, shelter, etc.) everywhere were solved with expectations exceeded. But even if you could wile away your entire life on Jessica Alba Island on the holodeck, the Big Questions will remain: what is the meaning of life? How did life begin? Etc.

Oh, and faith versus blind faith: Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel.

The economic doctrine of insatiable wants is just an attempt to excuse boundless greed by saying everybody does it. It's not true. Why do you think Warren Buffet, the richest man in the world, still lives in a quaint old house and is giving away most of his fortune to charity? Intangibles like social status and warm fuzzy feelings are not physical goods. Only a sad motherfucker would rather have a solid-gold house than give some money away or invest in research.

^
"The economic doctrine of insatiable wants is just an attempt to excuse boundless greed by saying everybody does it. It's not true."

As Will and Ariel Durant said in their 10 volume "History of Civilization" , the one main lesson to learn after a careful study of recorded history is that, life is competition. The more free the society, the greater the competition for resources and the greater disparity in wealth. Eventually this disequilibrium grows so great, and the resultant class tension so severe, that redistribution of wealth occurs by legislation, or redistribution of poverty is dealt through revolution.

>> ^snoozedoctor:
[...]At some point, it reaches the realm of faith, or simply "I have no idea." Either view is acceptable to me when you reach that far into the unknown.

I wonder, what is going to be left of the religious unknown by 2050? Since the mid-90s, neuroscientists have been concretely picking apart the general ghost in the machine view of the mind (check out "neurotheology"). (When I was spiritual, I was fascinated with the mysteries of our mental experiences; I hope to live to see these mysteries one day revealed.)

jwray, While I agree that 'hard science' is the practice of philosophy. I disagree about your statement criticizing the relevance of modern discipline of philosophy. The range of philosophers "from Socrates to Sartre" have a great deal to teach us about how to integrate and apply knowledge we receive from other sources.
'Hard science', 'modern philosophy', and religion all have a place in public discussion, but none should come to completely dominate.

Chilaxe,
It's fascinating stuff. Neurophysiology and pharmacology have advanced significantly, but perhaps not as far as some might think. PET scans and metabolic MRIs give us clues as to increased activity in certain brain structures during different types of cognitive and motor activities. That's very generalized information. Excess and deficiencies of neurotransmitters result in well described pathology. While we know cognition and abstract thought is performed in the cerebral cortex, we have very little information on the specific biochemistry and neuronal synaptic pathways that allow it to happen.

Some of the most interesting clinical cases I get to be involved with are awake craniotomies to resect brain tumors. Carrying on a conversation with a patient and witnessing real-time neuro/cognitive dysfunction with manipulation of the brain is something I can't begin to describe.

I'm also fascinated by brain development that is time limited and dependent. For instance, the areas devoted to language. If not stimulated during those crucial first few years of life, development is stunted and the full capacity for language skills is lost forever. I'm getting off topic, but it's fascinating stuff.

It's obvious that all consciousness, thought, and awareness is produced thru biochemical means. Thus, all concepts, precepts, abstracts, etc. are of anatomic and physiologic origin.

However, I'm still waiting to hear a good explanation of how a collection of inanimate atoms coalesce, begin replication, and eventually gain the capacity to look on themselves and determine their own essence.

Religion is just a bunch of smelly people with big, poop-smelling heads.

*dead

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 EDD.