deadagain wrote:it seemed to me that he let the various fundamentalists he spoke to have their say but he didn't get chance to refute alot of their assertions.
I don't think I'd have wanted to do too much refuting there either. Did you see some of those folk
? That Southern guy with the stary eyes who said "you called my children animals!" because he suggested the theory of evolution. Eek!
markfiend wrote:But what else have we got? Irrationalism?
Well, there are certainly many ways of looking at reality other than science and rationalism. They may all be utter crap, but we can look at them.
markfiend wrote:I think the utility of the rationalist view--methodological naturalism to be technical; the underlying assumptions (and yes, granted, they are only assumptions, not facts) that the universe out there is actually "out there" in some real sense, that it corresponds in a coherent way way with what we see, hear, feel, taste and smell, and that it works in the same way across all of space and time--that underlies scientific investigation is that it works. These assumptions make the technology that got us out of the trees and the caves in the first place possible, as well as things like the Internet, washing machines, TV, mobile phones, (yes and anthrax bombs and nukes as well).
Don't get me wrong - I operate as a rationalist and with all these assumptions. They are the best method I can think of for understanding the world. But what I also recognise is the utter feebleness of my human brain... and I think scientists of all people should recognise that science itself is born of the minds of a bunch of hairless apes plodding around on a little speck of dust in a tiny little corner of the universe. The chances that it could be an ultimate way of understanding reality (if that is indeed possible, maybe another concept dreamt up by homo sapiens) are very slim indeed.
But as I said, roll with it. It makes our kettles boil and enables the glorious sound of the Sisters to be committed to little shiney discs
.
markfiend wrote:boudicca wrote:The question that troubled me throughout the programme was - what would the world look like if this guy had his way. Religion banned, a la Communist Russia? How would it work?
I don't think that Dawkins wants religion banned
per se. He's just arguing his point of view that people would be better off without it.
Well good! But he sounded a bit scary at times.
Even the attempt to wage a sort of assualt on "faith" and religious belief - not banning it but arguing very aggressively against it - could be dangerous though. Not saying he shouldn't speak his mind if he feels so strongly but realise that he could end up simply polarising people even more.
Look at the reaction to the scutiny and criticism Islam has faced in recent years. Arguably (and I would argue this) it has helped turn fundementalists into wannabe martyrs, the devout into fundamentalists, the more ordinary worshippers into the devout, and the "normal" majority into feeling (very understandably) defensive and seperated from the rest of society. Everyone's been moved up a notch by it. I think extreme beliefs are less likely in a society where people do not feel under immense pressure or threat for their religion.
markfiend wrote:boudicca wrote:Does it perform an indispensable function in our societies? We are herd animals. Would everybody thinking at the same level of "independent thought" even be good for us as a species?
Better a comfortable lie than an uncomfortable truth? Not for me thanks. And of course there's the fact that these comfortable lies can and do drive people to dreadful atrocities.
I wouldn't put it like that.
What I mean is that human society (like the society of many other herd animals) appears to need leaders and followers. That's a very blunt summation - every society and every age has
*the majority of people half-believing one thing, mostly just going along with it because everyone else is (the person brought up to call themselves a Catholic and sort-of believe in God but secretly try and go for the shortest Mass)
*those who genuinely do believe and agree with the popular doctrines of the day (religious or otherwise)
*those who are in positions of power to, if not enforce, then uphold these doctrines (everyone from the Pope to the editor of the Sun)
*quiet heretics, who in thinking for themselves fequently come up with opposing opinions to those held by the majority
*Noisy heretics, the Leaders Of The Opposition if you like, who make these views public and are generally hate figures or at the very least "controversial".
My point is a utopia of "everyone thinking independently" is probably not only unrealistic but totally unworkable. Some people will coast through their lives without giving much thought to Big Issues. They'll go along with what they are told, and live out their life in a quiet way, minimum confrontation with the values of the society they live in. This has always been the case. Yes, it can be bloody dangerous when the society they live in happens to be Nazi Germany - you won't get any dissent from these quarters. Sad weakness of human dynamics... but every species, everything in nature, has its weak points.
Total enlightenment and independent thought is a lovely-sounding concept, but really it's so utopian its like the Scientist's Heaven. This ultimate Good. But a scientist ought to know that very little in nature comes without a consequence or price. We'd probably end up waging minature nuclear wars in the streets.
Also, there is an arrogance to this suggestion of "independent thought". Those who propose it do so with the smugness that they have already achieved it. That their ways and their thoughts are not coloured by traditions or doctrines. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on this planet who has not been affected to some degree by these things. It is part of being human.
), is probably deeply flawed. By all means roll with it, it certainly seems by far the best methos we have found, but his level of conviction was less "scientific" and closer to the unshakable religious beleif he claimed to loathe.
