bascule Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Dawkins has a new television program out, called "The Enemies of Reason". He attacks new agers, charlatans, and other purveyors of pseudoscience: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8669488783707640763 (note: this is a legitimate Channel 4 release on Google Video. It has been uploaded by the original content creator and is therefore not pirated) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Dawkins has a new television program out, called "The Enemies of Reason". He attacks new agers, charlatans, and other purveyors of pseudoscience: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8669488783707640763 (note: this is a legitimate Channel 4 release on Google Video. It has been uploaded by the original content creator and is therefore not pirated) Yes, this has been available for a while and I've seen it before. I enjoyed it, but unfortunately it just pissed me off and reaffirmed my disgust for people's decision to squelch their own curiousity. Flying spaghetti monsters accept parmesan sacrifices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Flying spaghetti monsters accept parmesan sacrifices. They do?!?! Holy cow, I've been using mozerella.... Oh man.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 They do?!?! Holy cow, I've been using mozerella.... Oh man.... You eeidiot!! Mozerella is for the congregation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Did you at least shred the mozzarella? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Did you at least shred the mozzarella? Why do people let go of their adherence to evidence in favor of social grouping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Why do people let go of their adherence to evidence in favor of social grouping? Hey, I was just asking if he shredded the cheese before he made the sacrifice:-p. ================================================ In my personal opinion I think Richard Dawkins tries way too hard to discredit anything he doesn't agree with. It's actually quite similar to what any other religious wacko does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veedo Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 That's not really Dawkins. He's already revolutionized biology and I guess he spends less time in science anymore. But if you live in a place like West Virginian you can appreciate people like Dawkins or Michael Shermer for trying to combat this movement away from science and towards superstition. I think Richard Dawkins has a very deep understanding of the importance of science. When science goes out the window people start burning witches and avoiding black cats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 There is a typo in the title of the thread. Presumably it should read " Richard Dawkins: The Enemy of Reason". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 There is a typo in the title of the thread. Presumably it should read " Richard Dawkins: The Enemy of Reason".Whyso? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowacct Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 Richard Dawkins = The Enemy of Reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 Richard Dawkins = The Enemy of Reason How do you justify this, considering his entire schtik is trying to get people to think instead of continue being spood-fed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted August 18, 2007 Author Share Posted August 18, 2007 There is a typo in the title of the thread. Presumably it should read " Richard Dawkins: The Enemy of Reason". Can you detail more specifically how you think Dawkins misrepresents science? There's quite an interesting little passage in this program where he talks specifically about how he views the supernatural. He makes quite clear that the supernatural is not ruled out by science, and he does not know whether or not it actually exists. But then he juxtaposes the reasons for believing in the supernatural with the reasons for trusting science. He describes the mutually supporting evidence structure upon which science is based, and suggests this represents a well-reasoned approach to understanding the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowacct Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 How do you justify this, considering his entire schtik is trying to get people to think instead of continue being spood-fed? Dawkins is as religious and narrow minded as the ones he is fighting so stubbornly. To me, he is as narrow minded as many of those young earth creationists. Dawkins does not apply truly scientific methods. He hinders scientific advances, because he has taken his position firmly and he has a belief made of concrete. The problem is not that he has such a concrete belief, the big problem is that so many young scientists are following him as their great hero. In the long run, science will be done harm. Another objection I have is that he does not differentiate in all things he is talking about and which he is supposed to be studying. He is talking in extremes. Again, that is not a good scientific attitude. Finally, he is spreading hatred. He is as fundamentalist as the fundamentalist bible belt christians who tell you 10 ways of how to go to hell, or fundamentalist muslims in the middle east, where women are not more than cooking and cleaning machines and sex objects for the dominant husbands. So, it is time that he shuts up and stops spoiling all those young scientists with his black/white reasoning. True reasoning covers the entire palette of colors, not only black and white. Having only black and white (not even in-between greys) results in a very distorted view. Hence my statement: Richard Dawkins = The Enemy of Reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 Dawkins does not apply truly scientific methods. He hinders scientific advances, because he has taken his position firmly and he has a belief made of concrete. The problem is not that he has such a concrete belief, the big problem is that so many young scientists are following him as their great hero. In the long run, science will be done harm. What makes you think his position is absolute and in concrete? Asking the astrologers to provide evidence for astrology is not closed-mindedness. In fact, it's quite the opposite, because asking someone to make a case for their claim is saying you're willing to hear what they have to say. If Dawkins were truly closed-minded, his video would've been telling the astrologer to shutup rather than asking the guy to subject the claims to the test he did. Finally, he is spreading hatred. He is as fundamentalist as the fundamentalist bible belt christians who tell you 10 ways of how to go to hell, or fundamentalist muslims in the middle east, where women are not more than cooking and cleaning machines and sex objects for the dominant husbands. How is he spreading hatred? Disagreement is hate? Please define hate then. Dawkins is not asking for anyone to be thrown in prison or to be persecuted, threatened, or killed. Let's not exaggerate here. So, it is time that he shuts up and stops spoiling all those young scientists with his black/white reasoning. True reasoning covers the entire palette of colors, not only black and white. Having only black and white (not even in-between greys) results in a very distorted view. Hence my statement: Richard Dawkins = The Enemy of Reason Again, what's black/white or absolutist about asking people to make a case for their claims? I might add that much of your objection to Dawkins was just vague generalizing. Was there something specific that Dawkins said in the video that you'd like to address? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 I don't really see how arguing about a particular set of things and being very sure about what you are saying is supposed to be the same as being narrow-minded and fundamentalist. Looks like equivocation to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckandcover Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 Personally i find that while dawkins may well present his case towards some people resonably on camera, he is generally egocentric, arrogant and dismmissive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veedo Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 We're on scienceforums. Richard Dawkins is one of the greatest scientists alive today. I would expect this kind of talk on a religious forum from people who hate science, not people who regular this board. Maybe all the trolls decided to come out and play. I never understood the reasoning of some people joining forums which they are completely against. IIDB for instance is a forum for "atheists and freethinkings" yet Christians and religious fundies commonly join the forum just to agitate atheists. This isn't a limited phenomenon either -- scientific-minded people for instance join the flatearther's forum all the time to debate them as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 I agree with some his arguments against God's existence, but I find that he is so prone and eager to over-generalize a given religion and slap labels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 We're on scienceforums. Richard Dawkins is one of the greatest scientists alive today. I would expect this kind of talk on a religious forum from people who hate science, not people who regular this board. Maybe all the trolls decided to come out and play. I never understood the reasoning of some people joining forums which they are completely against. IIDB for instance is a forum for "atheists and freethinkings" yet Christians and religious fundies commonly join the forum just to agitate atheists. This isn't a limited phenomenon either -- scientific-minded people for instance join the flatearther's forum all the time to debate them as well. I think this is a good example of Shadowacct's point. Someone who has believed all his propoganda and fallen into the same unscientific mindset. "One of the greatest scientists alive today", please! What has been his overwhelming contribution to science? Some crap idea about 'memes', hardly revolutionary. I don't understand why the atheist fundies bother coming to this site. It is a science site, and as such promotes free-thinking, not mindless adherence to their high priest's teachings. I suspect they just come to troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abskebabs Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 As a person Dawkins does irk me a little, especially when he talks about the "vastness of the universe" and how great science is, I mean don't get me wrong but it's like he's trying to instill a kind of religious sense of grandeur. Overall though, I don't think he's so bad, I just hope he and other people don't take themselves too seriously. People do get a little over the top emotional about this sort of thing on these forums I think. Whatever conclusions we make, we have only our universe to ridicule us:cool: He strikes me as a bit of a logical positivist, and it would be nice if he were to expand on his own thoughts and beliefs in one of his documentaries, as even logical positivism has to be founded on elements of faith, and is not self consistent on its own(Please correct me if I am wrong). I guess the argument on black and whiteness kind of has a point, and I guess perhaps a serious documentary on the history of reasoning and logical systems would be a good contribution that he could make, but I'm not sure it's his area of expertise. Also:D , I don't think it is helpful if people start to look at someone like him as the "voice" of science. Hell, it would be nice if people weren't throwing around slogans like belief and "faith" so much and tried to look at what they actually mean. I can only say what it seems like from my own perspective, but often it seems like he's antagonising people rather than trying to make them think, but I'm sure those are probably not his intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 I can only say what it seems like from my own perspective, but often it seems like he's antagonising people rather than trying to make them think, but I'm sure those are probably not his intentions. You sure he is unintentional about that? Modest titles such as "The God Delusion" and "The Enemies of Reason" seem to indicate otherwise. His books are an example of bad science and bad philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 You sure he is unintentional about that? Modest titles such as "The God Delusion" and "The Enemies of Reason" seem to indicate otherwise. His books are an example of bad science and bad philosophy. I don't know. I watched some other google videos of his, interviews, taking questions after a reading and so forth and I don't get the antagonistic offense from him. He just believes in what he's saying and is as excited to talk about it, argue it, debate it as an intellectual might be. I think you all bring your emotional baggage into these discussions because he seems to be quite careful about how he phrases things so that he's not just "dissing" your religion, he's intellectually "challenging" your religion. There's a difference and I've noticed the god faithful don't seem to recognize that difference. Incidentally, this is also why I doubt a religious forum could ever really work on here. The moment you challenge religion, in any capacity, it's seen as an attack, it's taken personal and subsequently ruins any discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 There is criticizing religion, and then there is bashing it. The claim that everyone who believes in God is delusional is just plain wrong. He's attacking everyone who even dares to attempt to derive any philosophical or religious meaning from science, even though he does this himself. I have a friend here in college who is Islamic and we debate about this kind of stuff all the time. But I don't go off claiming he is delusional or dismiss him on the basis of his belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now