This was on Australian TV last night, and was quite entertaining.

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/ ... 1wlk9.html

The episode can be viewed here.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm

WE JUST CAN'T KNOW!

I watched it. Aside from the irritating audience and dull questions, it was quite interesting. I would have liked to hear more on Pell's view on the soul - he basically said animals have a soul, which is different from what I thought most Christians think. As always Dawkins come across as arrogant, but at least he is informed on most things he comments on, whereas Pell showed some ignorance on some topics (humans evolved from Neanderthals).

Thanks, i didn't expect anybody to actually watch it haha.

Yes i think the questions were kind of outdated, but i think the show was trying out a new system with audience/questions.

Quite frankly a bit boring - same old questions, annoying crowd and dishonest priest.
Dawkins seemed edgy, as if he was ready to pounce or something... and also this Q&A format cannot really live up to a formal/informal debate like the ones between Hitchens and D'Souza or Harris and the rabbis - now those were entertaining.
I've been following the new atheist "movement" since about 2006 and I have yet to find a single instance of a meaningful argument being voiced against atheism. Apologists of religion should just give up.
Dawkins' upcoming discussions with Krauss should be much more interesting.

That's not necessarily entirely inaccurate: a small percentage of the average European genome is probably originally from the Neanderthals via interbreeding. So while they probably cannot be called the species we evolved from, they are likely among our ancestors.

I believe that's still speculation, though.

This was an interview between the team of Monty Python and church representatives, discussing the movie, The Life of Brian. The team state they were not mocking Jesus just simply saying people should "think for themselves".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeKWVuye1YE

Actually, he comes across as articulate, well-informed and correct.
Guess some see arrogance where the majority see an intelligent and sensible man who is proud to be an atheist.

^ This sums up my thoughts after watching the episode.

Well yes he is those things as well, I just don't like when he laughs at his opponent, which he does a lot.



I don't think it's speculation that we're related. It's just the way Pell put it suggested that Neanderthals were our sole ancestors.

Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss? That should be pretty interesting. I saw the lecture that Krauss gave a few years ago posted by RichardDawkins.net on YouTube and it was pretty fascinating.

Dawkins; the Pope for the new generation, and another excuse so people don't have to think for themselves.

Indeed, Dawkins is right, but he's a dick. I kind of find it annoying that Dawkins keeps getting put up as the spokesperson for atheism in these kinds of debates. We're debating with someone influenced by emotional arguments, and use someone who is as cold and harsh as he is. In order to sway people I'd think someone with a warmer and more inviting disposition would fare much better.

I love Dawkins dickishness though, a lot of times It's pretty amusing.

In regards to the topic at hand, I thought some parts were interesting but it was mostly the same old questions, they didn't seem very well thought out. I'm sure Pell and co only agreed to go on if they kept certain topics out of the discussion, such as the boy raping and such.

It pissed me off everytime the yokels in the crowd cheered something insanely dumb. It just seems liked Pell would yell a few key words to appeal to all the churchies in the audience (and there was a few) and they would eat it up.

I watched it, enjoyed it. The thing is there is a lot of going back and forth and not a lot being resolved (obviously), and yeah, there were some pretty retarded questions. But hey, that is Q&A for ya!

I'm hovering over the link debating whether or not to watch it.
Intelligent, articulate and observant as Dawkins is, it ruins it for me whenever he's on TV going apeshit at religious types.
*bookmarks it for tonight*

I still cringe at how unscientific Dawkins himself can be.

Explain.

He doesn't really go too apeshit, he is fairly civil - and doesn't get all up in arms the two or so times Pell beats him.

Now, dude, you better explain this, or we will rightfully assume that you mean his refusal to use the Bible as evidence, and draw the necessary conclusions...

Things could get real ugly, real fast.

Yeah maybe, but imagine what he puts up with everyday. People who believe in sky fairies hassling the poor guy 24/7. I can understand his "attitude".

I think when your dealing with the facts in best just to tell people straight.

Frankly said, he's sort of the epitome of a natural scientist - he doesn't know jack about the theory of scientific discovery. Either that, or, what I consider more likely to be true, he's keeping it secret because of how attracting his pseudo-scientific view is to the media. Look how many books he sold with that crap.
This is very difficult to explain to laymen, but still, allow me to clarify; Science is basically taking an arbitrary axiom and concluding from it with the tools at disposal. What results is scientific evidence. The problem though is that every single scientist worth bothering with knows that none of this scientific evidence/proof is supposed to be what everyone thinks it is - "verified truth". None of the stuff science states can really be proven in a way that one can guarantee that it's the truth; because as I earlier stated, the whole approach is based on unproven assumptions - axioms (a typical axiom for example is that the law of nature is a constant system that has worked and works the same throughout the course of time; or you may google "axiom of choice", just to get the picture) that are typically based on pure intuition, which is a very subjective matter because of the way perception works. Building up on that thought, no intuition is more legitimate than another.
Someone who believes in god bases his "proof" or "evidence" on that same, entirely intuitive thought. Be it because he "feels" some kind of supernatural existence guiding his way or whatever. That's also why Religion and Science are more alike than you would think - funny thing is that every true scientist would be able to notice and name this structural similarity instantly.
It's not reprehensible to simply choose not to believe in god or not to believe in such evidence. But it is unscientific to state that such evidence does not represent the truth, while praising the latest scientific researches to the point they could come off as something undeniably true, when in reality they're not either. Dawkins is one of the guys who appear to be uber-scientific. That whole attitude is a farce though - every scientist worth his shit knows being scientific cannot go line in line with bashing religion continuously.

EDIT:
By the way (regarding what is being discussed around the 8m50s to 12m40s mark) he kind of makes science look stupid by stating that the "what's the purpose/why?" - question is not a "valid" (I believe he even mentioned it was silly) one instead of simply explaining why it's an uninteresting question in science.
Values like purpose or even value itself are not inherent in an object, moral or whatever. Such traits or purposes are assigned externally always. For instance, the "objective" purpose of a screwdriver is not to pull out screws. That's just one purpose that was assigned to it by the inventor and today by maybe hundreds of thousands of people. However you may also find that someone assigns the purpose "weapon" to a screwdriver - and that purpose is, no matter how many people use the tool the way it was "intended" to be used, just as legitimate as using it for pulling out screws. This basically means that "purpose", "value" or literally any other trait are entirely subjectively assigned externally, by us, and may vary from person to person.

How dare you question his not-holiness Dawkins!!!

No, seriously. What I find a bit is how some people here almost seem to cream their pants as soon as his not-holiness makes an appearance... almost like the catholics and the pope.
And if you don't like him? Out comes the pitchforks... almost like... well you see where I'm going with this.

shinsetsu, you sound quite a lot like creationist propaganda, to be honest. If you really claim there is no difference between science and religion, you're repeating two of their favourite mantras: science is a religion, because you need to believe in it, and it's "just a theory". And both are utter bullshit.

Science is about testing a hypothesis, being able to repeat an experiment, falsifiability, theories, and evidence, among other things. Religion is a meme, it's "evidence" is to be found only within one's mind and better explained by psychology than as something supernatural, and it counts as none of the above. You, sir, make no sense, except in some kind of religious "science" context, and that's just aggressive apologetics.

Now, if you could step off the pedestal and explain to us laymen what exactly is "pseudo-scientific" about Dawkins' views... We, the laymen, have a bit of difficulty understanding such wisdom. I've read most of Dawkins' literary output, and while he's boring, predictable, long-winded, a bit too passive-aggressive for my taste, and fundamentally polite as hell in matters where I personally have little patience for bullshit and prefer direct bluntness, I really can't see what "his pseudo-scientific view" that sells so many books is. I have a gut feeling that it's you who lacks understanding of what science is, and that all this is a feeble attempt at defining things and words to suit some agenda you have... and unless you manage to explain what you mean, I will also mentally put a certain label on that agenda, and you, unfortunately.

And before you argue it: no, I'm not interested in defending Dawkins, there are better representatives for my own views and ideologies. The only book by him I always recommend is Ancestor's Tale, which is not about this particular issue, but a beautifully written and highly entertaining book on history of life.

What you think of creationism is entirely irrelevant and of no interest to this discussion at all. It's about the content, not about what ideology it sounds like. But for all intenses and purposes, I'm no creationist. And I'm not religious either, mind you.
If you're expecting me to answer your post thoroughly, try and actually make reference to what I said instead of writing it off as bullcrap and not properly elaborating on why you think that is the case.

OK.


My question is simply this: what the hell do you mean with the sentence above? I, a layman, can't understand or find anything particularly unscientific or pseudo-scientific about his works or opinions, and you can't expect to drop such lines around without either explaining your case or being questioned.

Thank you.

EDIT: and even I checked: there is no "theory of scientific discovery", at least not as a grand idea you allude at in your post. There's scientific discovery, but a theory on that is just a bunch of fancy words.

Did you even actually read the whole post? The answer to your question lies in the last paragraph, in case you didn't notice. And the explanation for it is in the previous ones. I mean, seriously, I think I eloborated on it pretty thoroughly.

LOL. Can't say I'm too surprised, though, haha.
That term is coined by Karl Popper, one of the guys who established one of the central methodical aspects of modern science you - to top it off - even mentioned in your previous postings (falsifiability). The theory of scientific discovery is basically the study of scientific methods in all their aspects. For example it deals with how accurately science can really conceive our surroundings etc. I think you get the idea.
EDIT: Though I personally never heard people use that term before, wikipedia lists this as "philosophy of science".

OK, since you insist, let's turn this thread into one of those utterly boring and extremely unreadable quote trains...


I did now. It was a nice edit you made after my post, I must say. What a silly person I am, not understanding and commenting on what you were about to say a minute after I posted.


I'd rather say that that is a pretty damn scientific view, and not in any way pseudo-scientific or unscientific. I don't think anything has any real and original purpose whatsoever, and there's nothing in the scientific worldview to suggest otherwise; things designed by intelligence are a different matter, and while you're right about the screwdriver and whatnot, that's silly coffe table philosophy in this context, and adds no value to your argument that Dawkins fails at science. However, religions are the exact opposite of science in that respect, so I'm sorry to say that you shot yourself in the leg in that one. It does not turn into pseudo-science if Dawkins does not explain it thoroughly every time he says it. He may have said something that could use some or a lot of elaboration, but he's not pseudo-scientific, no matter how irritating he can be.


OK, you're not surprised that I'm too stupid to understand your blabbering? I see. Get off the pedestal, you're making yourself look like an ass with that attitude.

Anyway, now we're talking. Use the correct words, dude, and people can understand you. If you have your own names for things, you can't put the blame on people who fail to understand what you write.

And if you indeed claim to understand the philosophy of science and scientific method, how the hell can you say that science and religion are the same? No sense in that, I say. Are you sure you understand what you're reading?

God, no.
Of course I meant the last paragraph before my amendment. You know, the one that starts with "it's not reprehensible..." You understand now?



Like I said in the passage above, this wasn't supposed to show Dawkins' unscientific view but rather his incompetence as a scientist (especially regarding the "philosophy of science") because he fails to explain why the question of purpose is not interesting to a scientist and rather calls it "unvalid" or "silly". The explanation as to why it is a question science doesn't bother with is in the edited part and would contentwise be one to expect from a scientist who knows his stuff.




Firstly; I don't have "my own name for things" - the term I stated was, like I said, coined by Karl Popper, not myself. Since I'm no native speaker I naturally don't know what term is currently popular/used in English. And yes, I'm not surprised you didn't know about it because if you did you would have known by context what I meant with this "term I made up" - or are you deliberately acting as though you have no empathy?
No sense in that - why? What's all this "utter bullshit" and "no sense" you're talking about? Refer to my long posting please. Do I need to beg in order for you to actually elaborate on your postings? :F

EDIT:



For the love of god (lol), no! Read the postings. I'll even quote it for you:

Your posts are jumbled up pseudo-philosophy that have nothing to do with science. Bravo on regurgitating Popper as if he had the ultimate truth or as if you really understood what he was saying. The fact remains that you're wrong, Richard Dawkins does not engage in pseudo-science, unless you want to be claiming that biology and genetics are pseudo-sciences.

*sigh*


So, essentially, you're saying that religion and science are the same, because one has to believe in either one? That is such an utterly idiotic idea that I have trouble to describe the level of idiocy here. It's a singularity of stupid, with Cherenkov radiation in the nebulae of moronic ideas hovering around it coloring everything blue. This is the main creationist defense against evolution, science and all they stand for, once they run out of other arguments: "science is actually just another religion, because you have to believe in it and have faith in it for it to work, so HA! you're mocking yourself! Nananananaaa!"

I will agree with you once I see something along the lines of a Jesus-powered cell phone. Until that point, science will not equal religion on any level in my mind.


Of course it's not. It's simply logical and based on reality, the available evidence, and common sense.


And here you hit a tree. It is very much scientific to say that things like feelings and emotions, not to speak of deities speaking in people's heads and other mental illnesses, do not represent the truth, at least not in the scientific sense. They are not observable, repeatable, falsifiable, etc. They are in the domain of psychology, and IMO, in the field of psycho-pathology.

The sad thing is that people tend to use their religions and other flawed beliefs more as a basis for their decisions than they use science. Don't equate them, it's moronic and actually harmful.


Why not? I'd say it goes very well hand in hand with bashing religion. That does not gnaw on anyone's scientific credibility one bit. Sure, it may be a bad publicity stunt in the Bible Belt, which seems to run from California to Maine nowadays, or result in a quick and summary hanging in Tehran, but there's nothing wrong with exercising a bit of Jesus-bashing and Allah-kicking along with science. Actually, I like such people more.

Your logic has plenty of holes, dude. And I'm done here, this might be contagious.

Just stop that. The joke is old and unfunny. And if you're not joking, we don't have to be a 100% sure, you just have to use a little something called logical and critical thinking. I haven't even watched the dawkins/cardinal discussion, but I'm pretty sure whats it's all about. Just the usual obvious questions, religious people being wrong, etc etc. And as always, the infidel wins. There are a couple of very simple theories and arguments capable of destroying religion, and it's a shame that a lot of people choose to ignore them, or simply don't know them.

I was obviously joking. And you don't have to find it funny, I was merely pointing out that it's what these kinds of threads always end up being. The only interesting debate I've seen on the subject was Lane vs Hitchens.

Well, I was actually talking to AW666... You know, because he insisted to quote your 4 word post. And he didn't add anything to it..

Perhaps, but in doing so you directly responded to my post. And I doubt he was going to come back in here and defend any position well so I thought I should adress it.
Anyway, I won't derail this further as it's making some great progress!

The problem with topics like these is that ppl are generally not really cut for abstract thinking.


I said they are structurally more alike that you would think - I didn't say they're the very same.
Like I said - I don't care what you think it is, it's about the theory itself (that certainly doesn't contradict science in any way - on the contrary it's basic understanding of its philosophy) and you fail to state any counter-arguments.


Logical? Reality? Do you even know what either of these words mean in a scientific sense? How about elaborating on what you find "logical" or "real" about not believing in god?


And in what way does any of that have to do with my posting? If you wanted to contradict me here you would have to explain in what way you find it scientific to write religious evidence off as "untrue", when we've already clearly established (and if not, feel free to further ask - I'll be happy to elaborate even more) that "truth" in itself is not a scientific concept at all and that NO decent scientist who knows of the philosophy of science would EVER claim that his scientific evidence depicts the way the world "really" is.

Again, it's not about what you or I find moronic or harmful (I might just as well share your opinion here, because like I said, I'm not religious in any way); it's not about opinions, it's about science.


Knowing about the theory of scientific discovery, how could one possibly claim his religious-bashing attitude is scientific? Knowing nothing can ever be objectively proven, knowing that no axiom is more legitimate than other, and finally - knowing about epistemology - how could one assess scientific proof is undeniable truth while disproving of religious evidence beyond saying that he simply doesn't believe in it?


EDIT: Btw, I need a break for today. Discussions like these are very time-consuming and difficult.

shinsetsu wrote
Logical? Reality? Do you even know what either of these words mean in a scientific sense? How about elaborating on what you find "logical" or "real" about not believing in god?

There is no logical reason god should exist. The whole concept was invented by people possessing almost no knowledge of the real world. It's actually that simple. You can go on and on about new theories about how a god could possibly exist., but without a good base, you don't have a leg to stand on. You can't base your arguments on idea's formed by people who didn't have any clue about the world.

And hey, maybe there is a god, and when he/she/it/unicorn does show up, I'd be happy to accept it's excistense. Because then there is real, factual, and logical evidence.

shinsetsu, I think you're overlooking the fact theres a enormous spectrum inbetween "absolute truth" and "completely unjustified".
And also that science only assumes the constants it does because they've led to replicable and constant results.

I feel the same way as you do about these kinds of threads, hence why I quoted your post in such light-hearted manner.