Jump to content

Notable Interviews on Climate Change, Religion fundamentalism/ID and Racism


Recommended Posts

In Australia, we have a questions and answers type of program, on our National broadcaster, the ABC [Australian Broadcasting Commision] The show is called simply "Q+A". The questions are asked from an audience to a select panel, generally consisting of notable people, on both sides of the political spectrum, and if I may add, stupidity/intelligence. 

I thought they might add something for  discussion for the forum.

I will first give a brief outline on the subject and notables on the panels of the four shows I have picked, covering the subject matter in the thread title..

First short Q+A is on the subject of climate change, and has on the panel, Brian Cox, physicist and scientist, along with a government climate change denier...a very dumb one I might add as you will see...

the second episode of Q+A concerns itself science and religion, and features Lawrence Krauss....

the next Q=A episode features Richard Dawkins and Australia's most senior Catholic Cardinal George Pell who was convicted [twice] of paedophilia and sexual misconduct and then finally exonerated and found not guilty.....

The fourth and final Q+A features Neil Degrasse Tyson commenting on racism in Australia along with cosmology....

Hope others find the four episodes of some interest. The show is excellent in its subject matter and makes a great change from the many idiotic 'reality"TV shows now on Aussie TV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent interview between two excellent scientists on "The New Atheist" and science and religion...30 minutes long, but enjoyable imo.

 

I particularly like the remarks of Professor Krauss at the 13 minute mark when he explains that atheism is "NOT" is not a belief system as some like to define, but simply a  willingness and an expectation to question, and accept the evidence of reality...following that the logical remarks by Professor Dawkin's on the qqquestion by the interviewer as to whether there was a "first person" an Adam if you will...beautifully answered imo! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet they both dismiss the possibility that a religion has something valuable to add; and they speak about truth as if it's a fact.

"Rise of the new athiest" may as well be a new religion.

Kraus said that someone understood "The god delusion" in a good way... 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Yet they both dismiss the possibility that a religion has something valuable to add;

Pretty sure Krauss in one of the other interview Q+A videos, mentions that the seemingly good side of religion, as per the 10 commandments for example, does not have a monopoly on those qualities and ethics, rather that those qualities and ethics are more endowed with science in fact, as science and the scientific method is based on truth and reality, and how democracy would not be able to function without the basis of scientific pronciples and fact, rather then the myth portrayed in a mythical book written by peasents during the Iron age....the very first answer by Krauss in the second video of this thread. At best, it  simply puts religion in some "isolated" respects, on a level with science.

There is also comments with regards to the term "Atheist", and the pidgeon holing of people with that term, [Atheist] simply because he or she expresses the scientific methodology and the principles of science. Personally I reject that label.

Again, I would urge others to take the time to watch the Q+A videos in particular, and the logical succint replies to some of those questions, against real Idiots, as per the first video and Brian Cox and the stupid stupidity he needed to slap down.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

"Rise of the new athiest" may as well be a new religion.

I see what is generally termed as the "rise of the new Atheist" as jargon by so called critics. An extract from the following seems to support my view on that.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

"In a 2010 column entitled "Why I Don't Believe in the New Atheism", Tom Flynn contends that what has been called "New Atheism" is neither a movement nor new, and that what was new was the publication of atheist material by big-name publishers, read by millions, and appearing on bestseller lists"

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, beecee said:

Pretty sure Krauss in one of the other interview Q+A videos, mentions that the seemingly good side of religion, as per the 10 commandments for example, does not have a monopoly on those qualities and ethics, rather that those qualities and ethics are more endowed with science in fact, as science and the scientific method is based on truth and reality

I'm not suggesting religion's have the monopoly on moral teaching's, in fact to suggest "the scientific method is based on truth and reality" is exactly what he's arguing against.

It shouldn't matter how one learns "a good moral compass"; science has a lot of answer's, but it's not the only conclusion or version of reality. 

13 hours ago, beecee said:

There is also comments with regards to the term "Atheist", and the pidgeon holing of people with that term, [Atheist] simply because he or she expresses the scientific methodology and the principles of science. Personally I reject that label.

But he's doing exactly the same with religion.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Again, I would urge others to take the time to watch the Q+A videos in particular, and the logical succint replies to some of those questions, against real Idiots, as per the first video and Brian Cox and the stupid stupidity he needed to slap down.

Understaning is difficult to achieve, that's the curse of knowledge.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

I see what is generally termed as the "rise of the new Atheist" as jargon by so called critics. An extract from the following seems to support my view on that.....

That's my point.

This is my thread, that argues their position; maybe worth another read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, beecee said:

Pretty sure Krauss in one of the other interview Q+A videos, mentions that the seemingly good side of religion, as per the 10 commandments for example, does not have a monopoly on those qualities and ethics, rather that those qualities and ethics are more endowed with science in fact, as science and the scientific method is based on truth and reality, and how democracy would not be able to function without the basis of scientific pronciples and fact, rather then the myth portrayed in a mythical book written by peasents during the Iron age

Science and morality are different disciplines - one is what we observe in the universe, the other is what we bring to it.  Morality is not so straight-forward that we can afford to discard the millennia of thinking that has shaped our cultures. Instead we should be building upon that base, taking what is useful from our mythologies, and creating new ones in the shape of our aspirations.

 

13 hours ago, beecee said:

...and the logical succint replies to some of those questions, against real Idiots, as per the first video and Brian Cox and the stupid stupidity he needed to slap down.

If they are such idiots why give them credence by engaging with them? Such people have the same mentality that has people believing in a flat earth and lizard people ruling the world. No one believing it will be reasoned out of it and it just raises their profile by putting them on the same platform as respected voices in science.

It would be better to give a platform to reasonable people of religious leanings (yes they exist), so we can more quickly transform our mythologies and incorporate our scientific understandings. This is why i believe Sagan was the greatest communicator of science - he didn't just tear down old ideas, he offered a tangible basis for new ideas. And that basis is the same one that can be found in all spiritual traditions: wonder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

.That's my point.

Then we are basically in agreement. 😉

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

This is my thread, that argues their position; maybe worth another read.

Yes, I remember, and perhaps I stated my position more clearly in that thread in about the fourth or fifth post.

9 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Science and morality are different disciplines - one is what we observe in the universe, the other is what we bring to it. 

Yes, agreed, but isn't morality also sometimes shaped by religious ideologies? And doesn't also sometimes religion can even improve that morality...eg: Fijians before the invasion of western culture and Christianity were cannibals. Now their society is near wholly based and driven by religion, and they remain probably the most friendly gregarious race on Earth. And then of course we also have extremism on both sides of the dial, that make that so called moral stance a joke.eg: Trump a great example of one side of that extremism, and sometimes political correctness on the other side, which I won't go into at this time.

9 hours ago, Prometheus said:

If they are such idiots why give them credence by engaging with them? Such people have the same mentality that has people believing in a flat earth and lizard people ruling the world. No one believing it will be reasoned out of it and it just raises their profile by putting them on the same platform as respected voices in science.

Good point! and an example of what I see as extremism driven by political agenda, as well as extreme religious agenda, sprinkled with the dust of stupidity.

9 hours ago, Prometheus said:

 This is why i believe Sagan was the greatest communicator of science - he didn't just tear down old ideas, he offered a tangible basis for new ideas. And that basis is the same one that can be found in all spiritual traditions: wonder.

On that dear Sir, you have my total agreement! Along with of course his speaking/teaching manner...cool, calm, collected, and in the most dulcet tones imaginable. The greatest educator of our time. David Attenborough is not that far behind imo.

9 hours ago, Prometheus said:

It would be better to give a platform to reasonable people of religious leanings (yes they exist) 

Of course they do! As I believe I have said many times...my only beef with religious people, are generally the fanatics that sometimes infest science forums, arguing/preaching/soapboxing against science and the scientific methodology.

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, beecee said:

Of course they do! As I believe I have said many times...my only beef with religious people, are generally the fanatics that sometimes infest science forums, arguing/preaching/soapboxing against science and the scientific methodology.

And there in lies the problem, it's positively Newtonian (for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction); it creates an entrenched position in science; and I have no doubt religious forums suffer the same problem's.

Krauss and Dawkins are thinking in those tramline's.

 

Of particular interest is at 1:22 and Douglas Moran's contribution.

14 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes, I remember, and perhaps I stated my position more clearly in that thread in about the fourth or fifth post.

Indeed, do you remember my reply?

Quote

 

I largely agree, other than the death thing; imagine if that warm fuzzy feeling happens in life, no point in waiting for death...

I think the death thing is more about the divine comedy of karma...

 

 

It's only a problem when we believe what we know is true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And there in lies the problem, it's positively Newtonian (for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction); it creates an entrenched position in science; and I have no doubt religious forums suffer the same problem's.

Krauss and Dawkins are thinking in those tramline's.

Never been to a religious forum, nor a flat Earth forum. Each to there own.😉

44 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's only a problem when we believe what we know is true.

I accept that what we obtain in science, through the scientific methodology, is evident enough to accept the current models, knowing that through that same methodology, it should approach closer to the "truth" then anything else.

And sometimes our scientific modeling may accidently reveal this truth and/or reality, or at least a good approximation thereof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, beecee said:

Never been to a religious forum, nor a flat Earth forum. Each to there own.😉

Nor me, just a guess...

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

I accept that what we obtain in science, through the scientific methodology, is evident enough to accept the current models, knowing that through that same methodology, it should approach closer to the "truth" then anything else.

What truth?

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

it should approach closer to the "truth" then anything else.

Why?

It's a method to reduce human bias and seek answer's; it doesn't seek to answer your truth.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What truth?

 

That which science is trying to model as close as possible. Scientific truth comes about by  applying the scientific method, observing and experimenting, and generally is always open for change if need be. That is far different from religious truth.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why?

Because the scientific method is based on logic and reason, rather then Iron age legend and myth. It is [science] a discipline in eternal progress.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's a method to reduce human bias and seek answer's; it doesn't seek to answer your truth.

Yes agreed to the first part. The second part is truth "can be" just that as science advances. Generally of course, science gives us great approximations of the truth [Newtonian and GR]...and on other occasions it has revealed and/or stumbled on the truth [The Earth being an oblate spheroid for example...or Pythagoras' theorm]...      Other times, it's probably way off, and waiting for further observational/experimental data to arrive closer to this truth or a reasoanble approximation thereof..

 

 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What have the Romans ever done for us?

 

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, beecee said:

That which science is trying to model as close as possible. Scientific truth comes about by  applying the scientific method, observing and experimenting, and generally is always open for change if need be. That is far different from religious truth.

Let's not get into a semantic arguement, did you watch the debate I posted, specifically Douglas's contribution?

As Prometheus said, the two philosophies aren't seeking the same truth or reality; contentment is a subjective reality/truth, how does science measure that?

There are many paths to contentment (ways to learn), science doesn't offer that class/lesson; as I've said before "we don't need to sink their boat, to aid the buoyancy of ours."...

 

16 hours ago, beecee said:

 

Why would any rational person think that film is blasphemous?

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Let's not get into a semantic arguement, did you watch the debate I posted, specifically Douglas's contribution?

Not as yet...It is lengthy and I have been a busy little beaver. I do have it ear marked though for Sunday, after I take the better half to church. 😉 And I don't believe I was being semantic.

 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As Prometheus said, the two philosophies aren't seeking the same truth or reality; contentment is a subjective reality/truth, how does science measure that?

There are many paths to contentment (ways to learn), science doesn't offer that class/lesson; as I've said before "we don't need to sink their boat, to aid the buoyancy of ours."...

But I havn't nor do I go out to sink their boat, unless they are soap boxing/preaching to me, or are erroneously rebuking science.

Not sure if you are aware, but I have been married for 43 years, my first and only marriage, and my Mrs is highly religious...I tolerate that, and in fact in some circumstances, encourage her with certain charitable scenarios she undertakes with relation to her church. Why, I even allow her church choir to our place about once every 3 months or so, for choir practice, and while I remove myself during their practice session, I quickly join them later for a bilo or two or three of yaqona [kava] The choir is from the local Fijian community. A cynical person could say I am taking advantage of the situation.😉

 

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, beecee said:

But I havn't nor do I go out to sink their boat, unless they are soap boxing/preaching to me, or are erroneously rebuking science.

But Dawkins does, "The God Delusion" is soap boxing/preaching and is erroneously rebuking the religious.

14 hours ago, beecee said:

Not sure if you are aware, but I have been married for 43 years, my first and only marriage, and my Mrs is highly religious...I tolerate that, and in fact in some circumstances, encourage her with certain charitable scenarios she undertakes with relation to her church. Why, I even allow her church choir to our place about once every 3 months or so, for choir practice, and while I remove myself during their practice session, I quickly join them later for a bilo or two or three of yaqona [kava] The choir is from the local Fijian community. A cynical person could say I am taking advantage of the situation.😉

Your post in my thread shows that, but shouldn't the word be accept, rather than tolerate; tolerance suggests that you don't like your wife's beliefs. 

"If you wish to seek peace of mind, then believe; if you wish to seek the truth, then investigate." - Nietzshe 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But Dawkins does,

Yes, you are probably correct. But it does take two to tango, and I dare say we will never get all on both sides to cease fire.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your post in my thread shows that, but shouldn't the word be accept, rather than tolerate; tolerance suggests that you don't like your wife's beliefs. 

Yes, correct again on my choice of words...thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2021 at 11:25 PM, beecee said:

Pretty sure Krauss in one of the other interview Q+A videos, mentions that the seemingly good side of religion, as per the 10 commandments for example, does not have a monopoly on those qualities and ethics, [...]

He actually is lenient enough to forego on the plain fact that the first four are just about "I'm a superstar" on the part of God. No morality there:

1. I am the supreme Lord

2. You will put me above all else

3. Don't even think about using any representation of me

4. Dedicate one day out of every seven days only to me

On 5/24/2021 at 11:25 PM, beecee said:

There is also comments with regards to the term "Atheist", and the pidgeon holing of people with that term, [Atheist] simply because he or she expresses the scientific methodology and the principles of science. Personally I reject that label.

Dawkins and others insist on this over and over. To what effect in society, I don't know. But certainly the word "atheist", which etymologically is just "non theist" has come to represent an insult to many people, in a very similar way as the word "myth" has come to hold a derogatory value in many people's minds, when it just means:

Quote

a story from ancient times, especially one that was told to explain natural events or to describe the early history of a people

Maybe it's because of the way in which some people use these words, or because of what people sometimes read into them. Or in some cases, a combination of both.

I watched the Dawkins-Pell debate years ago, and I was appalled. The more stupid and ignorant his talk was, the more applause did he get.

We evolved from Neandertals?

Evolution is random?

The universe before the big bang was a mixture of particles with perhaps a vacuum with electromagnetic forces? 

Appalling ignorance to the delight of his cheerleaders. Did he actually read Krauss' book, or any other science book for that matter?

On 5/25/2021 at 1:26 PM, Prometheus said:

Science and morality are different disciplines - one is what we observe in the universe, the other is what we bring to it.  Morality is not so straight-forward that we can afford to discard the millennia of thinking that has shaped our cultures. Instead we should be building upon that base, taking what is useful from our mythologies, and creating new ones in the shape of our aspirations.

 

If they are such idiots why give them credence by engaging with them? Such people have the same mentality that has people believing in a flat earth and lizard people ruling the world. No one believing it will be reasoned out of it and it just raises their profile by putting them on the same platform as respected voices in science.

It would be better to give a platform to reasonable people of religious leanings (yes they exist), so we can more quickly transform our mythologies and incorporate our scientific understandings. This is why i believe Sagan was the greatest communicator of science - he didn't just tear down old ideas, he offered a tangible basis for new ideas. And that basis is the same one that can be found in all spiritual traditions: wonder.

I agree. There are religious trends in all traditions that are more reconcilable with science than faith-based religion. Observation of the world and the self, humbleness, practice, conscious curtailing of your insatiable "needs" whenever you observe they're not so badly "needed".

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, joigus said:

He actually is lenient enough to forego on the plain fact that the first four are just about "I'm a superstar" on the part of God. No morality there:

1. I am the supreme Lord

2. You will put me above all else

3. Don't even think about using any representation of me

4. Dedicate one day out of every seven days only to me

That's all from the OT, doesn't the NT try to explain the meaning of the OT? For instance the first three could be just trying to say "don't listen to them, they don't understand" the forth could be, "take a day off, and think about it"...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's all from the OT, doesn't the NT try to explain the meaning of the OT? For instance the first three could be just trying to say "don't listen to them, they don't understand" the forth could be, "take a day off, and think about it"...

LOL. Good try. I think it's a "me, me, me, me" kind of God. There goes nearly half the commandments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, joigus said:

LOL. Good try. I think it's a "me, me, me, me" kind of God. There goes nearly half the commandments.

Is that true of the NT?

Besides what God?

Let's not get sucked into "The God Delusion" type of thinking and dismiss any understanding that's not scientific. For instance, how does science address the question of personal contentment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Sorry, but have you had a visit from JD?

You mean in the literal sense? We can play this game forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, joigus said:

You mean in the literal sense? We can play this game forever.

Indeed, or we could investigate the literal meaning... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, or we could investigate the literal meaning... 

I think you're only too obviously an LTP. And I'm too busy to play LT now. I'm expecting a visit from HWL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.