Comments for "Richard Dawkins - Author Of The Year" Video at VideoSift.com

By gluonium

gluonium (http://www.videosift.com/member/gluonium) — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:07:15 -0700

wow they sure do like to booze it up at the book awards, look at all those empty bottles!

By gwaan

gwaan (http://www.videosift.com/member/gwaan) — Tue, 01 May 2007 09:06:04 -0700

Dawkins is an intolerant fanatic - for a balanced view read: The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath

By BicycleRepairMan

BicycleRepairMan (http://bicyclerepairman.videosift.com) — Tue, 01 May 2007 11:10:00 -0700

"Dawkins is an intolerant fanatic"

Perhaps Dawkins isnt the right guy to convince you otherwise, but here is a Video that I think show why your statements there is basically flawed. Dawkins is, like any good scientist completely open-minded, he attempts to give any belief the same slack, or if you will, critical review.. If you read any of his books, you will see that he rightly approaches evolution with the same critical sense he approaches religions, the difference is that in the case of evolution, everything about it makes sense, and is supported by evidence, while the cases for various religions are flawed in almost every concievable aspect.

If i make the statement "There are flying unicorns in my garden" and the statement "Sahara is on the African continent" You should, ideally approach both with the same skepticism, you should, in principle, look it up, look for the evidence , think how plausible it is based on your understanding of the world and so on.

Every scientific theory or hypotheses goes through this same "grinder" . Why shouldnt religion?

By gwaan

gwaan (http://www.videosift.com/member/gwaan) — Tue, 01 May 2007 12:00:43 -0700

Dawkins is a good scientist - I would not deny that - but over the years he has moved from being a scientific sceptic to a preacher of intolerance. This move from scepticism to intolerance may have been motivated by the many vocal religious fundamentalists he met on his way who regulalry condemned him. But one should never respond to intolerance and bigotry with more intolerance and bigotry.

My charge against the God Delusion is precisely that in many of his arguments Dawkins abandons empiricism and reason in favour of simplistic generalisation and rants against the evil of religion. As Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project has argued: "Dawkins has abandoned his much cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism." Or as Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy at Harvard, has argued, Dawkins reasoning is full of "gaps, inconsistencies, and a suprising lack of depth of argument".

As Alister McGrath has argued: "The total dogmatic conviction of correctness which pervades some sections of Western atheism today - wonderfully illustrated in the God Delusion - immediately aligns it with a religious fundamentalism which refuse to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged. Dawkins is resistant to the calibration of his own certainties seeing them as being luminously true, requiring no defence. He is so convinced that his own views are right that he could not bring himself to believe that the evidence might legitimate any other options - above all religious options. What is particularly worrying is that, without seeming to realise it, Dawkins simply treats evidence as something to shoehorn into his pre-conceived theoretical framework. Religion is persistently and consistently portrayed in the worst possible way, mimicking the worst features of religious fundamentalisms portrayal of atheism. When some leading scientists write in support of religion, Dawkin retorts that they simply can't mean what they say. Dawkins clearly feels deeply threatened by the possibility of his readers encountering religious ideas or people that they might actually like - or even worse, respect, and regard as worthy of serious attention."

Dawkins would like to say that religion is only responsible for ill. He conveniently ignores the fact that people like Muhammad Yunus - founder of the Grameen Bank and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 2006 - were inspired to lift millions of people out of poverty by their religious beliefs and convictions which taught them to devote their lives to the upliftment and empowerment of some of the world's poorest and most impoverished people.

By BicycleRepairMan

BicycleRepairMan (http://bicyclerepairman.videosift.com) — Tue, 01 May 2007 13:39:30 -0700

Dawkins never "refuses his Ideas to be challanged", he does reject and rebuke, but thats because he has actually thought about it. For instance, he argues that we dont get our moral standards from religion. So someone says "But Muhammad Yunus is religious" well, Dawkins typical reply to things like that, is that Yunus was brought up religious, and that he would probably be a good person, with or without his religion. The fact that he himself feels motivated by religion, has do do with him as a person.

There are no statistics or documentation, or logic that dictates that religion does anything to make people more moral, in fact the statistical data we do have, show the opposite, poor, uneducated crime-ridden countries are typically deeply religious(Africas horn), wealthy countries with low crime rates etc are typically secular.(northern Europe) These stats doesnt have to be connected, or show atheists etc as more moral. But, it goes to show that religion does not have much of a positive moral effect.

It is overwhelmingly more likely that the logical,reasonable part of Yunus brain, the part that says "Why on earth cant poor people get some loans" the part that sees all humans as people with the right to equal opportunities was what really drove him to do as he did. I do not doubt he might have found passages in the Qur'an that could support that, but I dont think it was the real, sole reason for the goodness(And I have the statistics to refer to..)

When it comes to lunatics like the 9/11 hijackers on the other hand, they could not possibly have been driven by anything even close to humanism or logic, or respect for their fellow ape-descendants as no more or less likely to have all the answers than themselves, their drive was a deeply religiously deluded one, deprived of all logic and reasoning, the kind of irrational faith, and unwaivering lack of doubt(see Quran first verse) that only religious indoctrination can breed.

By BicycleRepairMan

BicycleRepairMan (http://bicyclerepairman.videosift.com) — Tue, 01 May 2007 13:51:43 -0700

And one last thing, even if atheism did lead to complete moral chaos, that ofourse would be absolutely no indication to whether it is true or not

IE: if there is no god, and you act nicely because you think there is one, doesnt mean there is one..

By Farhad2000

Farhad2000 (http://farhad.videosift.com) — Tue, 01 May 2007 14:01:31 -0700

I don't really understand what you are trying to argue here? First and foremost no atheist can convince a agnostic or a theist to think etiher way or not. Religion and particular the question of God and faith is entirely subjective to the person. I mean no where did anyone state that religion is needed for the development of ethics and morality. But then again science is completely devoid of that as well, I mean look at the Rwanda, the western world for all their praise of ethics and human rights did not seek to intervene in a genocide, because it wasn't a strategic objective. That is rational thinking at work. But was it the best thing to do as a human being?

But adopting a stance of simply saying all religion is useless and meaningless is just immature I believe. It goes against exactly the kind of progressive thought science teaches. Oppenheimer created the atomic bomb, but I believe it was his humanity that made him question "What have I done".

Atheism and Religion can just as uncaring as each other, its people that make the difference.

By BicycleRepairMan

BicycleRepairMan (http://bicyclerepairman.videosift.com) — Tue, 01 May 2007 14:17:20 -0700

I mean look at the Rwanda, the western world for all their praise of ethics and human rights did not seek to intervene in a genocide, because it wasn't a strategic objective. That is rational thinking at work. But was it the best thing to do as a human being?

That is not "rational thinking at work" its strategical thinking or political thinking, or the failure to act swiftly, raising awareness etc. We didnt not-intervene in Rwanda because it was irrational to do so.

There is no contradiction or conflict between "understanding, science and reason" vs "humanity and morals". Infact there must have been something irrational about Oppenheimer, and even more so the people who decided to use the atomic bomb. Not exactly religious irrationality, but something that told people it somehow made sense to kill an entire city or two full of civilians. Somewhere in their heads, they justified this, and I cant see how that justification was purely rational.

By Farhad2000

Farhad2000 (http://farhad.videosift.com) — Tue, 01 May 2007 14:32:31 -0700

No that was rational thinking, there was simply nothing of strategic importance, thats why the French came, took out their citizens and left. The Belgians lost troops and pulled out. The UN had it's hands full dealing with the Balkans, white people being more important in the larger scheme of things. The Canadians sent one general to basically lose his sanity. There was no failure to act, there was simply failure to want to interevene in a genocide. Only after the fact did the world paid attention, then forgot until Hotel Rwanda.

The justification with Oppenheimer again was rational, and so was the usage of atomics and firebombing Japan. General Curtis Lemay said himself that had they lost the war they would have all been tried as war criminals. The American goverment knew that the people would not tolerate another bloody battle like the one in Okinawa for the island of Japan. So the question to the president was this then, do you want to send more American troops to die fighting D-day type assaults? Or do you drop the atomic bomb to capitulate the enemy? What would you pick as the leader of the American people?

In no way am I supporting the events. But my belief that rationality can just be dangerous as religious fanaticism. Because circumstance sometimes drives you into it.

By gwaan

gwaan (http://www.videosift.com/member/gwaan) — Tue, 01 May 2007 14:47:40 -0700

"Dawkins never "refuses his Ideas to be challanged", he does reject and rebuke, but thats because he has actually thought about it."

The implication here is that religious people - or anyone else that opposes Dawkins' intolerant creed - never think, or change their opinions and beliefs. Even the most cursory examination of the history of any world religion will show you that this is false.

"In fact the statistical data we do have, show the opposite, poor, uneducated crime-ridden countries are typically deeply religious(Africas horn), wealthy countries with low crime rates etc are typically secular.(northern Europe)"

Oh - it's all clear now - secularism is the cure to all ills. It must be religion that is keeping the people in Africa down - not the legacy of colonialism and imperialism, the inherent inequality in the current global economy, misguided development polices, poverty, famine, civil war, drought, etc. Russia was a secular state when Stalin carried out the purges - it still is, and its still a very repressive and dangerous place to live; China was a secular state when Mao killed millions - it still is and in the name of secularism religious people have been discriminated against and killed for years; Germany was a secular state when Hitler killed the Jews; Turkey was a secular state when the Armenians were massacred. The two world wars were a result of aggressive secular nationalist ideologies. Communisim was a secular ideology. In the last two centuries vastly more people have died as a result of intolerant secular ideologies than religion.

The real problem is not religion or secularism but inflexible and intolerant creeds.

By BicycleRepairMan

BicycleRepairMan (http://bicyclerepairman.videosift.com) — Tue, 01 May 2007 17:37:36 -0700

"Oh - it's all clear now - secularism is the cure to all ills."

Did you notice how I only emphasized one damn sentence in my post, the one that says that there does not have to be a connection between those stats and the actual morals of secularism.

Talk about not listening.

My whole point was to show that there is no clear indications that religion makes you more moral there is also No clear indication that secularism/atheism makes you more moral

I said this because you brought up Yunus' religious conviction as the "source for good" which is what I was addressing.

"Communisim was a secular ideology. In the last two centuries vastly more people have died as a result of intolerant secular ideologies than religion."

Russia wasnt secular in the same sense say, scandinavia today is secular. people in scandinavia today are secular on their own conditions, not because some communist madman sends us to Gulags for reading the bible.

Stalin and other crazy communist dictators were invested in communism, forced communism, a failed political philosophy that they insisted on keeping despite the evidence it was destroying everything. If we could rank blind faith, I'm sure that would rank in the top 5 somewhere.

"The real problem is not religion or secularism but inflexible and intolerant creeds."

Here I think I can actually say that I , In principle, agree with you. The problem is that most religions, if they are not washed out beyond recognition to some kind of semi-secular "Just be nice to everyone"-philosophy that doesnt really have much basis in the actual text they are based on, Is in principle inflexible and intolerant. Again see the first few sentences of the Qur'an "There is no room for doubt" NO ROOM FOR DOUBT, if thats not inflexible, then nothing is. "Everyone who doesnt believe every word of this book will recieve a grevious punishment" If thats not intolerance, then nothing is. The bible is the same thing, in principle intolerant and inflexible.

Once again, you can change my mind. I can say "I know what it takes"

Can you?

By BicycleRepairMan

BicycleRepairMan (http://bicyclerepairman.videosift.com) — Tue, 01 May 2007 17:53:16 -0700

Farhad:

Well, again, it was strategy, politics, but yes, they did probably all try to be as rational as they could under the circumstances.. But what would be the alternative? TRYING to be irrational? If the outcomes had been different in these examples, and they had intervened in Rwanda, and not dropped atomic bombs in Japan, wouldnt you then have to call both actions/non-actions rational?

Can you even imagine a single situation, real or not, where it would be the best thing to just go "Screw this, I'm spinning the bottle!" in favor of actually thinking about it rationally..? Rational doesnt equal selfish interests or "I just want more money and power for me!" Rational is what we, as human beings, think is the best solution to the problem at hand.. It is what we, with our brains, believe to be the best idea we have.

By gwaan

gwaan (http://www.videosift.com/member/gwaan) — Tue, 01 May 2007 18:06:10 -0700

Look - I'm tired, and reading back over the posts I think we probably agree more than we disagreee - principally we are both concerned about fanaticism and intolerance. I'll make one final point then I'm bowing out. When you say:

"The problem is that most religions, if they are not washed out beyond recognition to some kind of semi-secular "Just be nice to everyone"-philosophy that doesnt really have much basis in the actual text they are based on, Is in principle inflexible and intolerant. "

I have to disagree with you. Tolerant forms of religion which are compatible with secularism and modernity do have their basis in the text - just not in a literal interpretation of the text. For example, as I have argued before on the Sift:

"Literalism is a problem that plagues all religions. Most Islamic scholars focus on the maqasid al-Shari'ah - the higher objectives of the Shari'ah - such as charity, selflessness, respect, modesty, fraternity, justice. Anyone who wishes to understand the classical theory of maqasid al-Shari'ah should read the works of Imam Shatibi - here is a link to a very good article on Shatibi's theory of the maqasid written by one of the greatest modern scholars of Islamic law - Mohammad Hashim Kamali.

Literalist interpretations of Islamic law have never been popular or widely held in the Islamic world. Until the foundation of Saudi Arabia the Hanbali school of law - the most literal of the four orthodox Sunni schools of law - had very few followers. Historically there was a fifth school of Sunni Islamic law - the Zahiris - but the school died out because its literalist views were unpopular and incapable of dealing with an ever changing world.

Unfortunately a vocal minority use a literal interpretation of Islamic texts to justify aggression against Muslims who don't share their views, and non-Muslims. Equally unfortunately, a vocal minority of atheists use a literal interpretation of religious texts to justify aggression against Muslims and other religious peoples."

Ultimately I'm just trying to get people to see things from the other side and hopefully foster a bit of tolerance and understanding.

By BicycleRepairMan

BicycleRepairMan (http://bicyclerepairman.videosift.com) — Tue, 01 May 2007 18:44:26 -0700

"Literalism is a problem that plagues all religions.

Well that, I think is what we get from so easily accepting that its somehow a good thing, or even ok to believe things based solely on Faith.

I do not for a second doubt that there are millions of religious people who wouldnt hurt as much as a fly, and that have the most gentle view of the world imaginable, but unfortunately, they inadvertently act as enablers of faith-based extremism by thinking that belief without evidence is a virtue. its not. its time we stop fooling ourselves and each other and recognize how dangerous religious conviction can be. If you actually read the holy books, there is not much in there that suggest you should take this loose approach to it, you almost have to go out of your way to find this citations in there, while the things I critize are apparant on the very first page, and repeated throughout. every bit of it calls and suggest a literal interpretation.

Fortunately, I think rationality is not just better than religion, its also stronger, because most people do try to apply common sense to life, no matter the religion. They just know you shouldnt beat homosexuals to death with rocks, no matter what the Old Testament says, so Rationality and common sense wins, more often than not. But there are still problems and seemingly unsolvable conflicts between what makes sense and what the scripture says. Use of condoms in africa, stem cell research, pro-choice, gays in the military, faith-based separation of schools,"fashion crime" in baghdad, burkas, sharia, circumcision, the list goes on and on.

Now I'm going to bed, it was fun debating you Take care!

By eric3579

eric3579 (http://eric3579.videosift.com) — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:41:42 -0700

*dead

By siftbot

siftbot (http://www.videosift.com/member/siftbot) — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:41:42 -0700

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 eric3579.

By siftbot

siftbot (http://www.videosift.com/member/siftbot) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:37:25 -0800

Awarding Issykitty with one star point for fixing this video's dead embed code.