Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Can I just point out that Dawkins did not agree with the title "Root of ALL Evil".

    It was typical channel 4 hype.

    Many thanks.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    On what basis do you arrive at your beliefs, then?
    Having good reason to believe something is not the same as ruling out all alternatives. We cannot rule out all alternatives for MOST of our beliefs (eg. all non-deductive ones).
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    Having good reason to believe something is not the same as ruling out all alternatives. We cannot rule out all alternatives for MOST of our beliefs (eg. all non-deductive ones).
    Seems a bit like tap-dancing on quicksand to believe in them, then. But I dare say everyone does it to an extent.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Seems a bit like tap-dancing on quicksand to believe in them, then. But I dare say everyone does it to an extent.
    If you say that you must rule out all alternatives in order to know P, then you're vulnerable to the skeptic's argument. The skeptic's argument is bulletproof if you define knowledge in that way.

    EDIT: And as I said, we don't rule out all alternatives in any of our inductive beliefs.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    If you say that you must rule out all alternatives in order to know P, then you're vulnerable to the skeptic's argument. The skeptic's argument is bulletproof if you define knowledge in that way.
    True. I suppose there's a middle ground, and it may not be in the same place for everyone.
    Offline

    14
    I just thought I would point out that Dawkins's programme this week is about astrology, clairvoyance and the like; it is not about religion.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lusus Naturae)
    I just thought I would point out that Dawkins's programme this week is about astrology, clairvoyance and the like; it is not about religion.
    To Dawkins and his (haha) disciples, is there a difference? I imagine he files them all under 'N' for Nonsense.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    To Dawkins and his (haha) disciples, is there a difference? I imagine he files them all under 'N' for Nonsense.
    Having not read any of Dawkins' books, am I right in assuming that he basically doesn't consider the possibility of the existance of spiritual forces that cannot be measured by humans?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    ah ****ing hell, i knew there was sometime on tele i wanted to watch last night. lame.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    ah ****ing hell, i knew there was sometime on tele i wanted to watch last night. lame.
    It's tonight. :confused:
    (Original post by UniofLife)
    Having not read any of Dawkins' books, am I right in assuming that he basically doesn't consider the possibility of the existance of spiritual forces that cannot be measured by humans?
    Basically. He's basically a logical positivist. Pity he showed up to the party 70 years too late.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    oh yeah, its monday, sweet!

    bloody hell, that means another day of results waiting, sucky.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    "Religion is the root of all evil (or at least, very bad)"
    "Why?"
    "Here are some fundamentalists!"

    ...
    personally I think a religion is responsible for all its followers, not just the reasonable ones.

    if anything it is to be held to account MORE in the case of fundementalists, because it enables them to acts of greater magnitude than moderate groups.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john !!)
    personally I think a religion is responsible for all its followers, not just the reasonable ones.

    if anything it is to be held to account MORE in the case of fundementalists, because it enables them to acts of greater magnitude than moderate groups.
    So if I went out and killed a load of people and then claimed I did it because the Holy Spirit told me to, on the basis solely of that evidence you'd blame Christianity for my actions? You're forgetting that not everyone who claims to adhere to a religion can actually be superimposed to any significant degree with its canonical/accepted definition.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john !!)
    personally I think a religion is responsible for all its followers, not just the reasonable ones.

    if anything it is to be held to account MORE in the case of fundementalists, because it enables them to acts of greater magnitude than moderate groups.
    The kind of people who make extreme actions can make extreme actions under any belief system. You can have extremists who are not religious but are animal-rights activists, or anti-globalist, etc. Fundamentalism is not a symptom of religion but a symptom of humanity. Holding up these people as proof that religion is evil is as stupid as holding up some extreme anti-capitalists or pro-environmentalists as proof that their causes are evil.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    The kind of people who make extreme actions can make extreme actions under any belief system. You can have extremists who are not religious but are animal-rights activists, or anti-globalist, etc. Fundamentalism is not a symptom of religion but a symptom of humanity. Holding up these people as proof that religion is evil is as stupid as holding up some extreme anti-capitalists or pro-environmentalists as proof that their causes are evil.
    ^+1
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    ^+1
    eh? :confused:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    So if I went out and killed a load of people and then claimed I did it because the Holy Spirit told me to, on the basis solely of that evidence you'd blame Christianity for my actions?
    If you claim was convincing, and there was no other clear motive for you wanting to 'frame' a religion, yes. And these two criteria are met in the vast majority of fundementalists.

    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    You're forgetting that not everyone who claims to adhere to a religion can actually be superimposed to any significant degree with its canonical/accepted definition.
    "Accepted defenition"? This by its nature is moderate. "significant degree"? Another nessecary clause.

    You and I both know that the important majority of fundementalists:
    (a) have strong, genuine religious views
    (b) find some way to interpret the religious idea to support their acts


    The idea you are putting forward is that religion is not responsible for how its followers interpret it. If a religion can be interpreted in more than one way, it is responsible for both interpretations, not just the modersate "accepted" one.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    eh? :confused:
    Means "I agree with the above post". Also means "I am too goddamn lazy to say so" :p:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john !!)
    If you claim was convincing, and there was no other clear motive for you wanting to 'frame' a religion, yes. And these two criteria are met in the vast majority of fundementalists.
    It's not just about "framing". In the case of religious fundamentalists, the religion is frequently a smokescreen for socio-political aims. Do you honestly blame religion as a first resort in all cases?
    "Accepted defenition"? This by its nature is moderate.
    I disagree. The accepted definition of the Church during the Middle Ages - both from our modern perspective and at the time - was not the slightly hippy one it is today. Accepted definitions change. This is very much in evidence if one compares pre- and post-11/9 conceptions of Islam.
    You and I both know that the important majority of fundementalists:
    (a) have strong, genuine religious views
    (b) find some way to interpret the religious idea to support their acts
    I don't agree with (a), at least not as a general rule. It's my opinion that religious fundamentalism is frequently a front for other ends. This doesn't prevent (b) from being true, however.
    The idea you are putting forward is that religion is not responsible for how its followers interpret it. If a religion can be interpreted in more than one way, it is responsible for both interpretations, not just the modersate "accepted" one.
    True. What I'm saying is not that religions are not responsible for their adherents' actions; rather that they are not exclusively responsible. Upon joining a religion, people don't become mindless automata, obeying only - and slavishly - the commandments of the Scripture and priesthood.*



    * Despite what Dawkins may have told you
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    So where are the extremist buddhists and why are they not bombing tube stations? Where is the atheist blowing up a church?

    Granted it can happen, but then, there is no atheism book that we all subscribe to that can be misinterpreted. There is the Qur'an for example which on more than one occasion calls for followers to MURDER.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.