As a big Richard Dawkins fan im looking forward to his program on ch4 monday 8pm "The root of all evil" where he argues that religion has the power to convert good people into evil killers by providing them with an unjustified and unfounded self courage and belief that over powers anything; therefore making even the killing of another human being justified by a "god."

The program is about the fact that more and more people are believing in something of which there is no evidence whatsoever, over a belief in science (eg evolution) for which there is massive amounts of evidence..........

I would argue. like Dawkins, that these people who believe in "god" (generally speaking) are not justified in disregarding science without any in-depth knowledge of the subject.

Myself, to be blunt, think that the concept of some spiritual being or god creating everything is ridiculous; there is no proof, and the evolutionary biology and genetics evidence around, that is overwhelming, and secondly happening all the time (eg MRSA and so called Bird Flu - becoming resistant to drugs because of random mutation therefore being successful in their environment - the basis of natural selection and evolution) without doubt proves science over religion.

Love to hear what Sheffield thinks about this subject and indeed Dawkins' work.

Cheers for the heads up on this programme- I'll definitely be having a watch and posting about it as well tomorrow.

from what I can gather from the previews, it's a polemic, and as such is preaching to the converted.

Dawklins needs to be much more emollient if he is actually going to sway minds.

Faith in God is not rational, so to consider it in the same light at evolutionary theory is to commit category error.

Since no-one can do the experiment of having two worlds, one with and one without religion - no conclusions can be drawn as to whether religious belief has furthered or hindered mankind.

I also wonder where he stands on the existence of Evil.

My retort to Dawkins, even though I am not religious, is that he is so blind to the idea of God, he'd refuse to believe even if God gave him a big wet sloppy kiss on reality TV.

Dawkins is a pompous ass, and this post is in the wrong section.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
My retort to Dawkins, even though I am not religious, is that he is so blind to the idea of God, he'd refuse to believe even if God gave him a big wet sloppy kiss on reality TV.

Maybe because he is trying to show people how stupid the idea of believing in something that is not real can be?

I like Mr Dawkins already- even though I've not seen or read anything of his.. I will do so now though, seems a clever bloke to me.

Dawkins is a pompous ass, and this post is in the wrong section.

How ironic is that statement.

Originally posted by Dear_Ladies
Dawkins is a pompous ass, and this post is in the wrong section.
All human beings are pompous arses. Dawkins is no different.

I take it that along with that incisive contribution, you've also reported it as being in the wrong section?

Originally posted by Dear_Ladies
Dawkins is a pompous ass, and this post is in the wrong section.

What if he is right though?
Thats the scary thing isnt it :)

Originally posted by ANGELUS
Maybe because he is trying to show people how stupid the idea of believing in something that is not real can be?

I like Mr Dawkins already- even though I've not seen or read anything of his.. I will do so now though, seems a clever bloke to me.

He's a hugely intelligent man, on a mission.

Maybe he is "the lady [that] doth protest to much" and is fact a closet spiritualist, but goes on Christian Bashing because he hates himself so much.

He is a science evangelist. He does not deny the existence of God either - his take being that if one does exist, it is greater and more wonderful than the pedestrian Gods of the desert tribes, and that if God exists, God will be revealed by science, and not by divine illumination.

The program will certainly be dishing out food for thought, to those who have an appetite for it, that is.

Originally posted by westons
Originally posted by Dear_Ladies
Dawkins is a pompous ass, and this post is in the wrong section.
How ironic is that statement.

On a scale of 1-10? about 7.5

Dawkins "the selfish gene" is a very thought provoking book, i would recomend it.

He is right. The scary thing is that too many people believe in nonsense.

Logically speaking, he is saying that most people are stupid which to be fair is a good assumption based on the fact that so many believe in a god.....

Everyone has to believe in religion because religion is a fact of life; its what religious people believe in that is absolute unproven ramblings.

If these people had the intelligence to understand the logical process that is evolution, they would not believe in "god." Fact.

Originally posted by westons
He is right. The scary thing is that too many people believe in nonsense.

Logically speaking, he is saying that most people are stupid which to be fair is a good assumption based on the fact that so many believe in a god.....

Everyone has to believe in religion because religion is a fact of life; its what religious people believe in that is absolute unproven ramblings.

If these people had the intelligence to understand the logical process that is evolution, they would not believe in "god." Fact.

One of the best posts I've ever read!
:thumbsup:

I couldnt have put it better myself :)

I’m a theoretical research student at the University of Sheffield. I consider myself as both “religious” as well as “scientific”. There’s absolutely no contradiction in being both religious and scientific, its a myth. In fact, for me they complement and validate each other. More I learn about Science, the more closely I draw myself to God, because through Science I am able to see God’s beautiful creation!

channel 4 8pm monday. not to be missed.

Originally posted by Respect
I’m a theoretical research student at the University of Sheffield. I consider myself as both “religious” as well as “scientific”. There’s absolutely no contradiction in being both religious and scientific, its a myth. In fact, for me they complement and validate each other. More I learn about Science, the more closely I draw myself to God, because through Science I am able to see God’s beautiful creation!

I'm so pleased to read a post that supports balance! :clap:

I’m a theoretical research student at the University of Sheffield. I consider myself as both “religious” as well as “scientific”. There’s absolutely no contradiction in being both religious and scientific, its a myth. In fact, for me they complement and validate each other. More I learn about Science, the more closely I draw myself to God, because through Science I am able to see God’s beautiful creation!

I find it hard to value you as a scientist with statements like that. Science is all about fact and proof, god is neither. As a scientist myself, I find it hard to believe that logic comes into your thought process.

Originally posted by westons
I find it hard to value you as a scientist with statements like that. Science is all about fact and proof, god is neither. As a scientist myself, I find it hard to believe that logic comes into your thought process.

UH? Science is no more true than spirituality? A fact is something that is believed to be true. Not much different from spirituality or religion.

Science changes the facts constantly and is a progressive path so what is the true fact and who is the judge?

I don't think that you can say either is right or wrong. What is the proof??

Originally posted by westons
I find it hard to value you as a scientist with statements like that. Science is all about fact and proof, god is neither. As a scientist myself, I find it hard to believe that logic comes into your thought process.

Presumably you would find it equally hard to value other scientists will religious convictions too? Like, er, Charles Darwin.

or Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday.

or Russell Stanard, Colin Humphries?

Even Fred Hoyle, renowned astrophysicist and atheist, deemed the Universe to be "a put-up job".

There's an interesting comment piece from The Grauniad about this programme: No wonder atheists are angry: they seem ready to believe anything (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1681002,00.html)

Originally posted by Respect
I’m a theoretical research student at the University of Sheffield. I consider myself as both “religious” as well as “scientific”. There’s absolutely no contradiction in being both religious and scientific, its a myth. In fact, for me they complement and validate each other. More I learn about Science, the more closely I draw myself to God, because through Science I am able to see God’s beautiful creation!
Religious belief is, by definition, a matter of personal faith. Science requires verifiable evidence. I would not argue with anyone's religious convictions, even if you choose to believe that the big bang came to be via the wave of spectral magic wand ;) . However, if a person of faith expresses, say, a Creationist viewpoint as fact, I will usually oppose them.

Some scientists obviously do have religious convictions, and fair enough; each to their own. However, I'd say that it would be rare to find a biologist, or at least one who expects to be taken seriously in the scientific community, who would express, for example, a Creationist viewpoint.

Respect, what is your area of reseach, by the way? Is it theoretical physics?

Program about to start in next few mins- ch4 now - the root of all evil.

What a disapointment!

It was far too one sided and extreme to be constructive or interesting. Bit of a science cabaret.

I enjoyed it and I'm looking forward to next weeks second part. At a time when endless amouts of religious guff is on TV I'm happy to see something that represents my own point of view.
Did anybody notice how few adverts there were.

Originally posted by westons
I find it hard to value you as a scientist with statements like that. Science is all about fact and proof, god is neither. As a scientist myself, I find it hard to believe that logic comes into your thought process.

Science is actually much more about probabilities than fact even evolution is a theory of evolution not a fact of evolution. Once you accept that and stop being dogmatic (rather like Dawkins who is rather more dogmatic and fanatical than pretty much any religious person I have ever met!) then you will see that there is no conflict between god and science. (We won't get into the conflict between organised religion and science though thats another matter!)

My Twopenneth

I now see why Religion is dangerous after watching this programme. It breeds fanatics.

I don't think Evolution disproves God, its just that God can't be proved. So Dawkin's is correct in everything he claims.

Now i've said it before i'l say it again. We see God as being this almighty who looks like us, because the controlling good books say so. Does God really have to be this way, I keep saying God could be just an Atom. As simple as Atoms may appear to us, they could be more complex than we know. Were's my proof? Well thats were my theory falls down, but if anyone wants to give me lots and lots of money to prove my theory, then i'l give it a go:hihi:

Someone as said in another thread that Gods supposed to be all powerfull. I say, why should he be? Lets put it this way, we build robots to do the jobs we can't, because we make these robots to that make us Gods. If say in the future we die off and some robot nation as taken over us, then say they begin thinking fo themselves, i'm sure they'll try and find out were they come from. Wouldn't they then look at their creator as God and ponder why do we let all the bad stuff happen to them, when we sould be this almighty powerfull being!!!

Originally posted by Cliff Clavin

Now i've said it before i'l say it again. We see God as being this almighty who looks like us, because the controlling good books say so.

I don't think that you speak for the masses with that comment. It is a simplistic explanation and stereotype of anyone with a belief.
God is just a word after all, and is many things to many people. also people who have a belief in god don't always believe in "the good book".

Originally posted by Cliff Clavin
I now see why Religion is dangerous after watching this programme. It breeds fanatics.

You don't need religion to do that - the peak oil theory does that quite nicely too ;)

Just a thought for both sides of the argument try reading Angels and Demons by Dan Brown.
Book is a mix of fact and fiction but is food for thought.

Originally posted by jayjay
Just a thought for both sides of the argument try reading Angels and Demons by Dan Brown.
Book is a mix of fact and fiction but is food for thought.

You're WANTING to inflict Dan Brown on the general public? :o

Wilf

Have you read it????????????

I got 2/3rds the way through the Da Vinci code before I could stomach his writings no longer.

I'd rather read the terms and conditions of this calender than subject another person to the latest hype that turns out to be dross.

Wilf

Each to their own, just thought it might be of interest to others, you may not like the style of writing but it does open up another avenue for discussion regarding the religion v science debate.

Nothing to add, wondered if anyone had any more comments?

Originally posted by jayjay
Nothing to add, wondered if anyone had any more comments?
Nothing apart from the fact that I'm annoyed that I missed it. I like Dawkins, although he does seem to rub some people up the wrong way. I think he enjoys it really :) .

I have transferred the program from my sky box to DVD now if anyone missed the first part in this intriguing series.
Let me know if anyone wants a copy please.

Well, it was certainly an entertaining hours viewing and I have now decided that atheism is definitely the way to go for me.

I watched as Richard Dawkins interviewed the frighteningly charismatic leader of America's National Association of Evangelicals, who believes he has been chosen by God to convert Americans through religious gatherings that resemble rock concerts.. I watched as the leader grew more and more angry about the questions posed to him.. and finally lost his rag and ordered Richard Dawkins and the crew away from the premises and land.

It is these actions I find questionable, and further proof to me that all religion is a big load of pooh designed to control people's lives from cradle to the grave.

Further proof came in the shape of the visitors to Lourdes.

Then there are the desperate, like those carrying burdens of disability or disease, who are among the 80,000 people a year who make the pilgrimage to Lourdes. Dawkins does the maths: out of the millions who, over a century, have placed their faith in a miracle restoring them to good health, there have been only 66 authenticated cures. This is hardly a strong record, he says, arguing that it is better for us to embrace truth than false hope.

Again more proof that religion is more of a menace than a healer of the world came in the form of the fanatics, like the former West Bank settler who has taken the small step of converting from Jewish fundamentalist to Muslim fundamentalist, transferring his hatred from one side of the looking glass to the other... he was an arrogant individual who will see no other side to an argument and is incensed by the way we live in the west.

I cant wait for next weeks episode which I will also transfer to DVD if anyone wants a copy for further reference.

In closing- the tomb of jesus, the site of the crucifixion of jesus... what a load of crap!

If anyone still buys into the whole religion cult-brainwashing I feel very sorry for you.. my advice, get out while you still can.

Forgot to add as well-
And this is for the followers of christianity.

Why do you believe in a leader like the pope who does not advocate the use of contraception that could prevent the further spread of AIDS and other killer diseases?

Because of the pope, people are dying needlessly.

I find it sickening that the church has not 'modernised' itself- as if it ever could- and sorted this problem out.

And people wonder why religion is dying a death in this day and age?

Originally posted by jayjay
Just a thought for both sides of the argument try reading Angels and Demons by Dan Brown.
Book is a mix of fact and fiction but is food for thought.

It would be good if could you briefly precis it for the thread, so we can include it in the topic?

Originally posted by ppn_2204
Nothing apart from the fact that I'm annoyed that I missed it. I like Dawkins, although he does seem to rub some people up the wrong way. I think he enjoys it really :) .

It was, essentially, a polemic with push-button emotional construction and editing.

But he seems to get frustrated to the point of inchoerence when he faces the (insane looking) evangelical superstar preacher, and starts to simply insist he is right.

His accusations of religion are not invalid, but his consistently perjorative tone and choice of words about the bible, the idea of god and christianity make him sound like a cheap preacher himself, denouncing from the pulpit.

He has a chair in promoting the public understanding of science, not a chair in bristling at fundamentalists.

Originally posted by ANGELUS
And people wonder why religion is dying a death in this day and age?

Only, it isn't.

Christianity is on the rise in Africa and already a permanent fixture of the majority of Americans. England is more the exception than the rule.

And I doubt very much if Islam is 'dying a death'.

However, I understand your point about the Vatican's ruling on contraception which flies in the face of compassionate Christianity, 'loving your neighbour' and so on.

Further, on the programme I loved the American 'all smiling, steely-eyed Evangelist Pastor' who threatened Dawkins and his crew and threw them out of his 'church' merely because they found his questioning arrogant.

That's America, the land where Walt Disney meets Jesus Christ and it's difficult to differentiate which is which.

Originally posted by Respect
I’m a theoretical research student at the University of Sheffield. I consider myself as both “religious” as well as “scientific”. There’s absolutely no contradiction in being both religious and scientific, its a myth. In fact, for me they complement and validate each other. More I learn about Science, the more closely I draw myself to God, because through Science I am able to see God’s beautiful creation!

I'm a lecturer at the University of Sheffield and I would say that, if one is truly honest, there is absolutely a contradiction in being both religious and scientific and those who proclaim themselves as both scientific and religious are fundamentally deluding themselves.

Originally posted by Titian
UH? Science is no more true than spirituality? A fact is something that is believed to be true. Not much different from spirituality or religion.

Science changes the facts constantly and is a progressive path so what is the true fact and who is the judge?

I don't think that you can say either is right or wrong. What is the proof??

Nonsense. You are making the fundamental and crass error so beloved of those seeking to put religion and the scientific method on equal footing. When you say that ‘a fact is something that is believed to be true’ you are implying that it has been pulled from thin air. This is simply not the case – as Richard Dawkins so clearly explained yesterday, science proceeds on the basis of constructing hypothesis and then trying to falsify them. This requires reference to a huge and overwhelming body of knowledge (data) or, in other words, evidence. Attempting to equate the scientific method with religious myth is not only attempting to compare oranges with apples but also displays a fundamental failure to grasp what science is. Science can say something is, to the best of our ability today, right, and back this statement up with scientifically collated and examined data (peer reviewed by the world’s experts in international journals). Religion can only say that something is right because of what is written in the Bible, Koran or whatever collection of myths written hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Originally posted by withnail
I'm a lecturer at the University of Sheffield and I would say that, if one is truly honest, there is absolutely a contradiction in being both religious and scientific and those who proclaim themselves as both scientific and religious are fundamentally deluding themselves.

How can their be this contradiction when one is a system of belief, and another is a system of knowledge.

I think this is a crass category error! :P

Nor did Dawkins venture into the realm of direct religious experience.

He was spoiling for a fight, not making a dispassionate analysis and building a scientific case. Showboating his "swaggering arrogance" on targets (evangelical christians) - trouble is Louis Theroux and dozens of others have done it with more panache charm and wit.


Science can't say whether anything is right, or wrong as what it lacks spectacularly is any moral dimension.

For all his talk about death and killing on the ground of religion, he neatly omits to mention the two greatest mass murdering atheists of the 20th century, who also appeared to lack a moral dimension....

So it was a rather selective presentation of "the facts", the sort of thing that Scientists of his calibre should be avoiding, not indulging in.

Originally posted by withnail
I'm a lecturer at the University of Sheffield and I would say that, if one is truly honest, there is absolutely a contradiction in being both religious and scientific and those who proclaim themselves as both scientific and religious are fundamentally deluding themselves.

Where is this contradiction? Perhaps you could outline it? As a research scientist (computer sciences and biology) I see no contradiction in spirituality and the sciences. The only contradiction comes when either people treat science in an almost religious light (which happens far too often) or believe so absolutely in the explainations of a religious text (which are just that explainations appropriate for the age in which they were written) that you let it take the place of research and thought. Explain to me why god (small g god - I'm not talking about any denomination here) can't live just as happily in a lab as a church - and in fact probably more so?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
For all his talk about death and killing on the ground of religion, he neatly omits to mention the two greatest mass murdering atheists of the 20th century, who also appeared to lack a moral dimension....

Damn you beat me too it! Far from religion being the root of all evil mankind does spectularly well at evil when left to its own devices! Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pal Pot - I don't think you could call any of them religious?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

His accusations of religion are not invalid, but his consistently perjorative tone and choice of words about the bible, the idea of god and christianity make him sound like a cheap preacher himself, denouncing from the pulpit.



Agreed that he could come across better, but then the message is always going to be deeply unpalatable to those of faith anyway. The fact that he may sound 'like a cheap preacher' (I disagree, but anyway) doesn't lessen the power of his message and I think one of the sub-themes of his thesis is that it is time to take the gloves off and to resolutely fight the corner of reason. In other words, why should we handle so-called 'religious sensitivities' with kid gloves when religious extremism is concomitantly and viciously attacking our normatively secular societies? Or even further, as he pointed out, why should the voice of reason (and let's not forget that mankind has developed through the application of reason, not faith) remain muted when global society is increasingly defined through the prism of faith on faith hate?
I, for one, am sick of being identified as an infidel (and therefore fair game for Islamic terrorists) because I live in the west. At the same time, I am appalled that we have allowed ourselves to be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as so closely aligned with the Christian fundamentalism that informs US policy (the Colorado preacher has weekly conference calls with Bush?!). I am, in fact, sick of religion and the demonstrably disastrous effect that it has on society, be that the Taliban, the Christian right, Jewish settlers or any other gaggle of believers. This is why last night’s programme left me, as a card carrying atheist, more depressed that ever about where the world is going rather than whooping with delight as one believer after another identified themselves as small (closed) minded zealots with no legitimate place in the twenty-first century.

Originally posted by ANGELUS


Well, it was certainly an entertaining hours viewing and I have now decided that atheism is definitely the way to go for me.


Join the gang - you are in a small, but esteemed minority. Take a look at the National Secular Society (of which Richard Dawkins is a Honorary Associate) http://www.secularism.org.uk/

Originally posted by withnail
Agreed that he could come across better, but then the message is always going to be deeply unpalatable to those of faith anyway. The fact that he may sound 'like a cheap preacher' (I disagree, but anyway) doesn't lessen the power of his message and I think one of the sub-themes of his thesis is that it is time to take the gloves off and to resolutely fight the corner of reason. In other words, why should we handle so-called 'religious sensitivities' with kid gloves when religious extremism is concomitantly and viciously attacking our normatively secular societies? Or even further, as he pointed out, why should the voice of reason (and let's not forget that mankind has developed through the application of reason, not faith) remain muted when global society is increasingly defined through the prism of faith on faith hate?
I, for one, am sick of being identified as an infidel (and therefore fair game for Islamic terrorists) because I live in the west. At the same time, I am appalled that we have allowed ourselves to be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as so closely aligned with the Christian fundamentalism that informs US policy (the Colorado preacher has weekly conference calls with Bush?!). I am, in fact, sick of religion and the demonstrably disastrous effect that it has on society, be that the Taliban, the Christian right, Jewish settlers or any other gaggle of believers. This is why last night’s programme left me, as a card carrying atheist, more depressed that ever about where the world is going rather than whooping with delight as one believer after another identified themselves as small (closed) minded zealots with no legitimate place in the twenty-first century.

Very little I can add to that, suffice to say that I agree with every word.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
For all his talk about death and killing on the ground of religion, he neatly omits to mention the two greatest mass murdering atheists of the 20th century, who also appeared to lack a moral dimension....


These regimes you mention murdered for ideologies which had been elevated to, and had all the trappings of, a religion. Hence the reference last night to the Nuremburg rallies. Or perhaps you could look at the cult like status of Kim Jong Il in North Korea. Anyway, these regimes didn’t murder because of atheism in the same way that Al Qaeda murders because of their interpretation of Islam. The Nazis managed a very comfortable accommodation with the Vatican and Christianity exists today in North Korea. There is nothing here to suggest that atheism is as dangerous as religion.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
It was, essentially, a polemic with push-button emotional construction and editing.

But he seems to get frustrated to the point of inchoerence when he faces the (insane looking) evangelical superstar preacher, and starts to simply insist he is right.

His accusations of religion are not invalid, but his consistently perjorative tone and choice of words about the bible, the idea of god and christianity make him sound like a cheap preacher himself, denouncing from the pulpit.

He has a chair in promoting the public understanding of science, not a chair in bristling at fundamentalists.

I agree. I found his argument to be cleverly constructed to sidestep issues such as politics, nationality and race which can have just as much, if not more, of a bearing on conflict and persecution as fundamentalist religion. I was quite disappointed in his stridency which I found to be fundamentalist in itself.

I did note that his argument focussed only on fundamentalist religion. He did not address the many forces for good which arise out of faith/belief (two different things in my opinion). He also ignored the centuries of scholarship which has accompanied faith; it cannot simply be dismissed as 'ignorance'.

When he spoke on why he may have been removed from the evangelical church he visited - and questioned why the pastor had accused him of reducing his flock to 'animals', he interpreted wrongly; his argument with the pastor was to insinuate that the people who worshipped in his church possessed little more intelligence than animals. I'm certainly no creationist, and have doubts about evangelicalism, but it was clear Dawkins wished to pick a fight here. The one group of people on the programme who I found myself actually wanting to go and talk with were the reasoned and pleasant group of free thinkers.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Where is this contradiction? Perhaps you could outline it? As a research scientist (computer sciences and biology) I see no contradiction in spirituality and the sciences. The only contradiction comes when either people treat science in an almost religious light (which happens far too often) or believe so absolutely in the explainations of a religious text (which are just that explainations appropriate for the age in which they were written) that you let it take the place of research and thought. Explain to me why god (small g god - I'm not talking about any denomination here) can't live just as happily in a lab as a church - and in fact probably more so?

Belief in the supernatural undermines reason and progress. It is only when the supernatural retreats that reason advances. If, as is suggested, the stories in the bible are simply that, made up to explain to the masses who they are and where they came from, then what relevance does religion have? How is it possible to reject the feeding of the five thousand as a spectacular fable but then still believe that Jesus died and was reborn? What percentage, then, of the bible is believable?
I would suggest that the further one moves away from the central tenets of a religion by, for example, dumping those parts which are clearly and spectacularly unbelievable, then the less relevance religion has to a point where it has no relevance at all. Here I am in agreement with the fundamentalists; either you believe the Koran as the word of god, or you don’t. If you do, then you must unequivocally believe it (fables and all) as it is the word of god. If you don’t, then you are not religious however much you might like to think you are.
Moreover, it is not possible to reconcile a belief in the supernatural with reason; either you believe in the scientific method (say, evolution) or you believe in the supernatural (a god created life). There is no middle ground much as people would like there to be one. It is, of course, difficult and perhaps terrifying to shake off religious indoctrination (Sunday school, hymns in assembly, Christmas, Easter and all the rest of it) and to contemplate the idea that we are on our own but there it is, try Humanism.

Originally posted by withnail
Belief in the supernatural undermines reason and progress. It is only when the supernatural retreats that reason advances.

Thats patently rubish. vast amounts of scientific scolership has been carried out by religous men and women - Gregor Mendel, Maimonides, Copernicus, Erasmus, Lobkowitz, Newton, Pascal, William Whewell, Kenneth Boulding, Walter Ong, Einstein etc. etc. etc.

If, as is suggested, the stories in the bible are simply that, made up to explain to the masses who they are and where they came from, then what relevance does religion have? How is it possible to reject the feeding of the five thousand as a spectacular fable but then still believe that Jesus died and was reborn? What percentage, then, of the bible is believable?
I would suggest that the further one moves away from the central tenets of a religion by, for example, dumping those parts which are clearly and spectacularly unbelievable, then the less relevance religion has to a point where it has no relevance at all. Here I am in agreement with the fundamentalists; either you believe the Koran as the word of god, or you don’t. If you do, then you must unequivocally believe it (fables and all) as it is the word of god. If you don’t, then you are not religious however much you might like to think you are.

I would argue completely the opposite. The descriptive stories and parables within religious texts are predominatly there as teaching tools to instill ideas and concepts. Why does believing whether the feeding of the 5,000 (for example) if an actual historical fact rather an allagory designed to demonstrate the abundance of god cheapen religion? If anything it makes it stronger and shows a deeper understanding of the meanings of the religion rather than a book you take at face value.

Moreover, it is not possible to reconcile a belief in the supernatural with reason; either you believe in the scientific method (say, evolution) or you believe in the supernatural (a god created life). There is no middle ground much as people would like there to be one.

Again patently rubish. For example - god is the creative impulse that started the universe in what we pervieve to be the big bang creating the universe which then evolved into what we see now. There you go how does the presence of god in that statement deny evolution and how does the presence of the word evolution deny god?

It is, of course, difficult and perhaps terrifying to shake off religious indoctrination (Sunday school, hymns in assembly, Christmas, Easter and all the rest of it) and to contemplate the idea that we are on our own but there it is, try Humanism.

Surely you mena there you believe it is? The problems that religion can cause (and it does cause some) is not the belief in a deity but the misguided belief that the religious person has the one true answer and that all others must by definition be wrong and must be converted to your way of thinking by any means at hand. Of course this firstly isn't anything to do with religion but with the control structures around it and secondly applies equally well to prostheletyzing athiests like (e.g.) Dawkins

Originally posted by evildrneil


Again patently rubish. For example - god is the creative impulse that started the universe in what we pervieve to be the big bang creating the universe which then evolved into what we see now. There you go how does the presence of god in that statement deny evolution and how does the presence of the word evolution deny god?



I'll just pick you up on this one as I'm off out but essentially what you are trying to do is find a role for god and in doing so you reduce god to something which we don't yet understand (the origins of the universe). This is no different from the Aztecs seeing the sun as god or the Vikings seeing lightning as god's lash. I can’t disprove the existence of god, but then again I can’t disprove the existence of the Loch Ness monster. Should I then be agnostic about Nessie, believe in it even though I have no evidence for it, or put my ‘faith’ in rationalism and science and come to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that there is no such thing?

Originally posted by withnail
I'll just pick you up on this one as I'm off out but essentially what you are trying to do is find a role for god and in doing so you reduce god to something which we don't yet understand (the origins of the universe). This is no different from the Aztecs seeing the sun as god or the Vikings seeing lightning as god's lash. I can’t disprove the existence of god, but then again I can’t disprove the existence of the Loch Ness monster. Should I then be agnostic about Nessie, believe in it even though I have no evidence for it, or put my ‘faith’ in rationalism and science and come to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that there is no such thing?

It was actually based on Spinoza's definition of God (which fits quite neatly with my own beliefs):

God is the mechanism of nature and the universe, having no personality, and that the Bible is a metaphorical and allegorical work used to teach the nature of God

Whether this is 'trying to find a role for god' or not is immaterial it still shows that your argument that you can not have scientific and religious beliefs concurently to be incorrect.

As for nessie - you've said it yourself - science may proves that it is more likely than not that there is such a being and just by accepting that your are showing your agnosticism on the subject!

It was actually based on Spinoza's definition of God (which fits quite neatly with my own beliefs):
[/QUOTE]
Which is not really what we are talking about here is it?
And isn’t Spinoza’s definition of god pretty far removed from what the faithful masses would accept it to be? It certainly isn’t a concept that religious fundamentalists would recognise and this, going back to the programme, is the point. Religion, per se, can be harmless enough (though ultimately we would be better off without it), but religious fundamentalism (and who would deny its continued rise in today’s world) is anything but.

Going back to my point on supernaturalism and the scientific method, isn’t the ‘god as everything’ idea simply talking about nature itself? And if you are talking about nature, then you are talking about the natural world, not the supernatural. Spinoza, of course, was condemned as an atheist for this thesis! Surely, this concept of god is so watered down and removed from the god worshiped in churches, mosques and synagogues that it ceases to mean god in the accepted term (a supernatural deity). This is really an exercise in metaphysics a la Duchamp’s urinal (fountain). Spinoza’s god, then, is a concept purged of supernaturalism thus lending support to my case that one cannot be both a scientist, or adhere to the scientific method, and, truthfully, be also religious, that is, believing in the supernatural.

If you prefer to define god as nature, as you seem to be doing, then this belief of course is compatible with science and you are able to see god in all of nature’s majesty (although I can’t see how this can be defined as religious belief). But I wasn’t arguing against this. I claimed that a belief in the supernatural - not some concept of the natural world that you wish to call god- is incompatible with science and I haven’t seen anything here to challenge that. In other words, religion and god I, and I think you’d find most, would define as having the supernatural (bearded bloke in white, heaven and hell, etc) at their core. You, on the other hand, if you are following Spinoza’s definition would define god as nature. We are then not talking about the same thing and the confusion, I submit, is on your part as I am quite sure in what I do and do not believe.

Agnostic on Nessie? Unfortunately for the beast, and although I don’t begrudge the Scots the tourist revenue, I am no more unsure about Nessie than I am about fairies at the bottom of my garden or angels in the sky.

Originally posted by withnail
Which is not really what we are talking about here is it?

No? It is what I was talking about - perhaps you should have defined terms before wading in with sweeping remarks about religion! A belief in a god manifest in nature is no less a religion than Christianity or Islam and is pretty much be definition super-natural (you may be viewing god as manifest in nature but it is greater than nature and therefore supernatural.)

And isn’t Spinoza’s definition of god pretty far removed from what the faithful masses would accept it to be?

That rather depends on what you choose your faithfull masses to be doesn't it. This definition would be right in there with e.g. Shinto, Taoism, Neo-paganism and arguably hinduism and Budism.

It certainly isn’t a concept that religious fundamentalists would recognise

Again - pick your religion and fundamentalists...

and this, going back to the programme, is the point. Religion, per se, can be harmless enough (though ultimately we would be better off without it)

Why would be be "better off without it" - because it doesn't fir into your belief framework? That would be a rather dogmatic and fundamentalist viewpoint to take wouldn't it?

but religious fundamentalism (and who would deny its continued rise in today’s world) is anything but.

I certainly wouldn't deny religious fundamentalism is a bad thing - however I would equally claim that political and athiestic fundamentalism (for want of a better term) are equally dangerous. It is not the religion that causes the problem but the fundamentalism - take away the religion and people will always find something to be fundamentalist about.

Going back to my point on supernaturalism and the scientific method, isn’t the ‘god as everything’ idea simply talking about nature itself? And if you are talking about nature, then you are talking about the natural world, not the supernatural.

Not at all - talking about god as manifest in the universe doesn't mean that there is nothing outside the physical universe - i.e. something supernatural

Spinoza, of course, was condemned as an atheist for this thesis! Surely, this concept of god is so watered down and removed from the god worshiped in churches, mosques and synagogues that it ceases to mean god in the accepted term (a supernatural deity). This is really an exercise in metaphysics a la Duchamp’s urinal (fountain). Spinoza’s god, then, is a concept purged of supernaturalism thus lending support to my case that one cannot be both a scientist, or adhere to the scientific method, and, truthfully, be also religious, that is, believing in the supernatural.

We are still talking about it as god so I would say that argument is false! It may not be the same as an old bloke with a long white beard sitting on a cloud and watching you but it is no less a deity (and if you want to use the term a supernatural one) for that.

If you prefer to define god as nature, as you seem to be doing

I didn't do any defining - I used Spinoza's! I would say that god is manifest in the universe but is something greater than that. God is a concept that doesn't fit easily into the human mind hence some way of talking about it is required which is what religions are - culturally appropriate ways of talking about something you cannot adequately describe. It's when people get so wrapped up in these labels that they forget what they are talking about that problems occur.

then this belief of course is compatible with science and you are able to see god in all of nature’s majesty (although I can’t see how this can be defined as religious belief).

Why not - what would you define as a religious belief?

But I wasn’t arguing against this. I claimed that a belief in the supernatural - not some concept of the natural world that you wish to call god- is incompatible with science and I haven’t seen anything here to challenge that. In other words, religion and god I, and I think you’d find most, would define as having the supernatural (bearded bloke in white, heaven and hell, etc) at their core. You, on the other hand, if you are following Spinoza’s definition would define god as nature. We are then not talking about the same thing and the confusion, I submit, is on your part as I am quite sure in what I do and do not believe.

Once again it depends on your definition of supernatural. I would claim that a god manifest nature (though not just nature by any means) is supernatural - in fact by definition it must be! What you seem to be talking about when you discuss supernatural is actually rather closer to mythology.

Agnostic on Nessie? Unfortunately for the beast, and although I don’t begrudge the Scots the tourist revenue, I am no more unsure about Nessie than I am about fairies at the bottom of my garden or angels in the sky.

In which case you are not following a scientific approach (Nessie probably doesn't exist but we can't prove it so we must leave room for the possibility that he does) but following an antibeliever approach (Nessie does not fit into my belief structure so I shall discount it as impossible)

Originally posted by evildrneil
You don't need religion to do that - the peak oil theory does that quite nicely too ;)

Not sure where you get that from. The Peak Oil theory isn't a theory. Oil is finite, so if you did your research you'd discover it will happen at some point. So if its next week, next month, next decade, one things for sure its going to happen. Its OK though you'll be one of those who'll understand it when its begun.

As for being fanatic, is it wrong, right or is it fanitical to want to try to prevent the worst disaster modern man faces?

When I said Fanaticism, I was referring to how a Muslim was on TV was more or less claiming it was westerns fault for allowing our Women to dress the way they do, that makes him think it was fine to Rape them!!! He also spoke of being a Soldier of Allah, willing to Kill!!! He also spoke of Richard Dawkins should be killed for spreading his poison.

Originally posted by Cliff Clavin
Not sure where you get that from. The Peak Oil theory isn't a theory. Oil is finite, so if you did your research you'd discover it will happen at some point. So if its next week, next month, next decade, one things for sure its going to happen. Its OK though you'll be one of those who'll understand it when its begun.

As for being fanatic, is it wrong, right or is it fanitical to want to try to prevent the worst disaster modern man faces?

When I said Fanaticism, I was referring to how a Muslim was on TV was more or less claiming it was westerns fault for allowing our Women to dress the way they do, that makes him think it was fine to Rape them!!! He also spoke of being a Soldier of Allah, willing to Kill!!! He also spoke of Richard Dawkins should be killed for spreading his poison.

I was joking - but you have illustrated my point quite nicely!

Originally posted by evildrneil
I was joking - but you have illustrated my point quite nicely!

I did have a feeling you were Joking with the ;) all I was trying to illustrate was that Peak Oil may not be such a joke. Its fine to stay humorous about it as it is with anything in life.

To be honest I getting to point of giving up giving to$$ about it and getting the ol' Trans-Am back out :D . I'm not a fanatic, i'm just trying to rais awreness, on the net and messageboards its hard if not impossible to get over your true personality. I do have a good sense of humour (honestly I do, I really am, believe me, I .....:hihi: ) In real life I'm willing to discuss it with people who wish to, i'm also willing to walk away if people don't. I don't bring the issue up from out of the blue, I only bring it up if the conversation heads that way but if the people i'm talking to aren't interested I don't bother to try and ram it down them. So I'm no Fanatic, all I say is find out the facts, hell I don't know enough, but there's tons of free stuff on the net, then make up your own mind.

I've made my mind up. I've cancelled my pension and i've pulled out my longterm tracker savings. So yeah i'm positive its going to happen, so I aint gonna lose my hard earned cash :thumbsup:

Why i'm thinking of giving up on it all, is not because I don't think its going to happen, its because I realise 99 out 100 people either don't want to know or dont give a stuff, the latter is because they aren't willing to discover what exactly it will mean to them and their lifestyles. You see most people say "I'll just ride a bike, when Oil runs out" the trouble is Oil will never run out, so they just don't get the point ;) but they will in less than 10 years :D

Originally posted by withnail
Join the gang - you are in a small, but esteemed minority. Take a look at the National Secular Society (of which Richard Dawkins is a Honorary Associate) http://www.secularism.org.uk/

Cheers for that :thumbsup:
Just taking a look at that site now- good stuff from the looks of it.

Praise be, I've been born again.... :)

If there is good, there is bad etc, etc.......but if the Devil were ever to go on a serious recruitmnet drive, he might as well hire Richard Dawkins.

Originally posted by bassplayer
If there is good, there is bad etc, etc.......but if the Devil were ever to go on a serious recruitmnet drive, he might as well hire Richard Dawkins.

Why? Atheists don't believe in the devil/evil.
Do you somehow equate atheism with 'evil'?
Anyway, it would seem that, given the daily slaughter that god's children unleash on themselves in the name of their particular god, this devil chap doesn't actually need to do very much, does he?

Originally posted by withnail
[There is no middle ground much as people would like there to be one. It is, of course, difficult and perhaps terrifying to shake off religious indoctrination (Sunday school, hymns in assembly, Christmas, Easter and all the rest of it) and to contemplate the idea that we are on our own but there it is, try Humanism. [/B]

Hey, you were the one trashing festivals as quoted above and you have clearly professed your beliefs!.
Sure everyone is entitled to their own opinion and you seem to be driving yours home. So I go to church and worship a God that I believe is omnipresent at all times. The Bible does actually say that the Devil is the prince of the power of the air; which means that he also has the right to create whatever disaster, or calamity at will. But only for a certain amount of time. When these things happen, God tends to get most of the blame, how could He let things happen etc.etc. and yes, I do feel sad and upset for those that suffer.
Obviously you appear to not believe in anything that science cannot prove.

Darwin came along and said that we all came from a primitive life form, changed eventually into monkeys and developed into humans over millions of years. Wow!!!
Now that seems more plausable than just being created.... to you!!
I don't think that the Pastor whom Dawkins spoke to did himself any favours in his discussion, a bit too self pious I think but the fact that billions of people feel the need to believe in something rather than nothing speaks for itself. Maybe that religion does present itself as an easy target for ridicule and blame but I felt that Dawkins went straight for the jugular in his presentation, (dismissing shortage of miracles at Lourdes) which I guess he was entitled to do.

I have spoken to some other people about the programme and my previous post was not only my thought but that also of non believers or atheists who came to the same opinion that I did.

Conducting a straw poll of my friends who caught this program, the christians were much less irritated by it than the agnostic/atheists.

Mainly because, if it is a war of ideas, Dawkins is busy shooting his own troops, and making the other side look good by presenting obviously skewed and caricatured stereotypes of his adversaries.

He seems to have a genuine problem with people who disagree with him, because he's not used to it. If he could keep his vituperative tendencies under control he might actually learn something himself - if he can stop himself 'educating' others for more than a few seconds that is.

Even Dawkins has acknowledged the possible existence of a God, so to when he calls himself an atheist, he actually means agnostic.

I don't really disagree much with the thrust of Dawkins' arguments, but he is doing "the scientific cause" more damage than good in his oversimplified & confontational programme.

Also if he was a cosmologist and not an evolutionary biologist, I think he would temper his certainty somewhat.

I did enjoy the programme on Monday. As someone who has been brought up in a secular family I have never understood how anyone can believe what religions tell them and then so wholly run their lives around those beliefs. It just seems so unutterably preposterous and a complete waste of time. It was good to see that at least some air time was given to someone who feels this way.

Atheists are often assumed to be lacking in morals, but it couldn’t be any further from the truth. If you need a model for moral behaviour then use the idea that Humanists centre morals on “treat others as you would like to be treated yourself”. It works every time and could never be used to justify terrorism as religious morals have been used at times.

I am glad that western Europe seems to be bucking the trend as far as religion is concerned, and IS becoming a more secular society (although I am worried about Blair’s plan for more faith schools – religion has no place in schools IMHO). It is simply frightening that the biggest superpower of the world, and many other countries seem to be ruled by religion. Would you want someone running the country who insists on life being run around their belief in fairies? To me, religion in politics is just as misplaced.

Originally posted by banesmabes
I am glad that western Europe seems to be bucking the trend as far as religion is concerned,

Is it? Find out how many adverts have been banned in Catholic countries by intervention of the Vatican in the last 20 years and you may be surprised.

Our education secretary and prime minister are both Catholics.

Richard Dawkins should talk to some Jesuits if he wants to discuss the whole Science vs Religion thing. They could teach him a thing or two about philosophy.

Theres a counter-argument here which may be worth a read?

http://www.jesuit.org.uk/features/rootofallevil1.htm

Bear in mind of course that this is coming from a believer rather than an anti-believer so it's probably worth taking it with a pinch of salt (along with the pinch needed for Dawkin's anti-believer stance!)

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Is it? Find out how many adverts have been banned in Catholic countries by intervention of the Vatican in the last 20 years and you may be surprised.

Our education secretary and prime minister are both Catholics.

Richard Dawkins should talk to some Jesuits if he wants to discuss the whole Science vs Religion thing. They could teach him a thing or two about philosophy.

I should perhaps have been more specific and stated north-western Europe (which still accounts for a large area and a large number of people). I didn't say that the church held no sway in these countries, but their influence is at an all time low and is only ebbing away further.

Our PM btw is CoE, not a Catholic. He does attend Catholic services, because his wife is a Catholic, be he himself is CoE. I believe his beliefs have influenced the decision to create more faith schools, which is a strange development when the population as a whole are growing more and more secular. However, the extent of fundamentalist religious influence on British politics is nothing compared to the US, where unless you are a self-confessed bible basher you are seen as evil incarnate.

However, the church does have a disproportionate say in government/parliament in this country. Why should the church get seats in the HoL?

On a personal note, I am less likely to vote for someone who has voiced their religious beliefs. Like I said before, they may as well be saying they believe in fairies as far as I'm concerned.

What an incredibly patronising man. I mean, all that bull**** about 'mount probable' or whatever.

He managed to pick the most extreme examples and inflate them. It's nice to hear someone express their views freely but he did try and make out that anyone who didn't agree with him was either a moron or a sheep.

And talk about putting 'science' on a pedastal. He himself showed that a lot of accepted wisdom in scientific circles is later proved to be wrong.

I'm an atheist myself but I don't think he helped the 'cause' whatsoever.

Banesmabe - fairies DO exist :P

Originally posted by banesmabes
I should perhaps have been more specific and stated north-western Europe (which still accounts for a large area and a large number of people). I didn't say that the church held no sway in these countries, but their influence is at an all time low and is only ebbing away further.

However, the church does have a disproportionate say in government/parliament in this country. Why should the church get seats in the HoL?

It's not a matter of should, as it already does get seats. Clearly a matter of historical precedent.

Since this is a series, I fully expect him to visit the Vatican's Astrophysics Department and talk to them about their understanding of the 'conflict' between science and religion.

Perhaps, fearing a debate with an equally intellectual and scientifically trained mind, that also possesses faith, he will do no such thing. We shall see.

I have no argument with secularization of society, politics and state schooling. I believe in the scientific method as the only way to meaningfully know anything about the natural universe.

I'd also like to hear his scientific views on the evolutionary advantage conferred by religion. One would imagine that it has one, or it would not persist as it does.

But Dawkins is doing 'moderate' scientists a disservice.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
It's not a matter of should, as it already does get seats. Clearly a matter of historical precedent.



A precedent that was set centuries ago when Christian religious beliefs in this country were observed by virtually 100% of the population. Other modernisation of the HoL has occured in recent years, so why not throw the church out with the hereditary peers?

Originally posted by kathythebean

Banesmabe - fairies DO exist :P

lol - sorry Kathy. Do they live anywhere near Father Christmas?!?

It's an invalid question.

There is no should about circumstances that already exist. If you follow through with that form of questioning, why should the house of lords exist at all? Why should britain, human beings or for that matter the universe exist? At which point you are left relying heavily on the anthropic principle of the universe should exist so that we can observe it. Which is both nuts, and very appealing at the same time.

Originally posted by banesmabes
A precedent that was set centuries ago when Christian religious beliefs in this country were observed by virtually 100% of the population. Other modernisation of the HoL has occured in recent years, so why not throw the church out with the hereditary peers?

Indeed, why not? I have not suggested otherwise.
Also the house of lords is totally irrelevant.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Theres a counter-argument here which may be worth a read?

http://www.jesuit.org.uk/features/rootofallevil1.htm

Bear in mind of course that this is coming from a believer rather than an anti-believer so it's probably worth taking it with a pinch of salt (along with the pinch needed for Dawkin's anti-believer stance!)

I'd say that pretty much sums up what I think about the programme.

A fantastic thread with some very good points from both sides. Although I do come down on the side of science... I wouldn't reject religion entirely either, I believe that religion in it's purest form is only without evidence because there is at present no scientific means of testing it.

We can't test whether the expanding edge of the Universe is made of cheese and winkles (as far as I'm aware) but that doesn't mean that there isn't a faint possibility that it could be.

However... I would be inclined not to believe in the major religions going around - I have vague beliefs of my own.. or at least the possibility of beliefs... but they're completely individual. The problems with the major religions as I see them are that:

A) Many of their trappings have been disproved in some way or another by science, which I do believe in (at least 95% of it at any rate) - as should any rational person. Science has nothing to do with believing or not, to say you don't believe in what science tells you is akin to a blind person saying they don't believe the sky is blue (after a peer reviewed consensus from several sight experts who agree that yes, that's blue alright) - you might not have the knowledge or equipment to test these things but that's no reason to disbelieve the people who do.

It does however seem quite possible that some of the core concepts of religion could be sound and the rest of the mythology added by people trying to jazz it up. The bible was written by men after all, and men don't necessarily have to tell the truth or understand what they're writing about - they also often have a personal agenda.

B) They fit people into large and distinct tribes, each member of a believing in broadly the same thing very strongly. This allows unscrupulous types to tinker with the direction of that belief and start religious fanaticism and wars etc. off - all of which is against the precepts of their respective religions. As far as I'm aware, there are no major religions which advocate violence against others.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Crayfish
[B]A fantastic thread with some very good points from both sides. Although I do come down on the side of science... I wouldn't reject religion entirely either, I believe that religion in it's purest form is only without evidence because there is at present no scientific means of testing it.

What!!!!!!

Why is it that everything has got to be tested to prove that it is credible?
It appears that unless its been dipped in litmus paper, heated by a bunsen burner, examined under a microscope or given a scientific name etc.....it is not proved, not recognised, not seen as for what it is?
So if Dawkins were to go to a Charismatic Church, (Spritual Church) would he go up to the pulpit and explain what is happening to the people in the congregation?
There are somethings that cannot be explained because of our limitations to explain them.

Part Two coming up in a few days - sharpen your claws!

For those interested in examining their beliefs objectively, why not try this short quiz?
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1208

Those with faith needn't bother I suppose as their faith already tells them everything they need to know – (devils in the air cause disasters and calamities of course) :rolleyes:

Interesting program, especially the dissection of Christianity's "love thy neighbour" attitude (when Christians have enthusiastically slaughtered throughout history the world over).

Because if it isn't tested, we don't know whether it's credible or not. Just because a lot of people think something is right doesn't make it right without evidence. Rather a lot of people once believed the world is flat.

What I was saying however is that while the world being flat has certainly been disproved, the existence of some sort of higher power has not. There's no real evidence for it either (as far as I'm aware, do feel free to point me in the direction of any you know of) - but that doesn't mean that it's wrong.

What is happening to the people in the congregation?

I missed this program so can't comment.

Originally posted by Crayfish
Just because a lot of people think something is right doesn't make it right without evidence.

Imagine being the first person to suggest the world was round!! They probably never lived to tell the tale to more than 2 people.

Originally posted by withnail
Those with faith needn't bother I suppose as their faith already tells them everything they need to know – (devils in the air cause disasters and calamities of course) :rolleyes:

Ahhhh the joy of an unbiased and thoughtfull post! This may be the view you have of 'the faithfull' unfortunately it's pretty much a tabloid headline view and just as unreliable and unrealistic!!!

Originally posted by evildrneil
Ahhhh the joy of an unbiased and thoughtfull post! This may be the view you have of 'the faithfull' unfortunately it's pretty much a tabloid headline view and just as unreliable and unrealistic!!!

See bassplayer's quote regarding the devil above above.

Come on Dr. Neil, this petty sniping doesn't become you. You've already asserted that the bible is simply a collection of fables so why not go the whole hog and embrace Humanism -you might like it!

Originally posted by withnail
See bassplayer's quote regarding the devil above above.

Come on Dr. Neil, this petty sniping doesn't become you. You've already asserted that the bible is simply a collection of fables so why not go the whole hog and embrace Humanism -you might like it!

It's hardly petty sniping to point out that your view of 'the faithfull' is entirely unrealistic - how can you possibly build an argument on the the merits of science versus the merits of faith when your view of 'the faithfull' is so distorted?

And I've asserted that much of the bible is teaching parables and culturaly / time appropriate description - that isn't an assertion that it is a worthless book. Besides which, despite being raised as a Roman Catholic, I don't ascribe to Christianity as the one true religion (because I don't believe there is such a thing) so why should my oppinion on the bible lead me to humanism, which appears to me to function as much of a religion as any other?

Originally posted by withnail
See bassplayer's quote regarding the devil above above.

Come on Dr. Neil, this petty sniping doesn't become you. You've already asserted that the bible is simply a collection of fables so why not go the whole hog and embrace Humanism -you might like it!

Are you a member of the humanist association?

Originally posted by Titian
Are you a member of the humanist association?

No, but I am a member of the national secular society which is linked to the Humanists.

Originally posted by withnail
Part Two coming up in a few days - sharpen your claws!

For those interested in examining their beliefs objectively, why not try this short quiz?
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1208

Those with faith needn't bother I suppose as their faith already tells them everything they need to know – (devils in the air cause disasters and calamities of course) :rolleyes:

It's exactly this kind of belittlement that Dawkins is encouraging, and indulging in himself.

His chair in promoting the public understanding of science would be put to better use by someone else. Someone who, when confronted with people who do not accept evolution for example, reverts to a pedagogical frame of mind, and not a perjorative one.

Withnail. You've not commented on Leading Scientists who are Christians, Muslims or Bhuddists. You've said that religious beliefs are inconsistent with a scientific view point, and that scientists who have faith are "fundamentally deluding themselves".


I don't see the inherent contradiction that you claim exists. Can you expand upon it?

Originally posted by Titian
Imagine being the first person to suggest the world was round!! They probably never lived to tell the tale to more than 2 people.

Well it was common knowledge amongst the educated in around 300 BCE.

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of it in 220 BCE.

Aryabhatta did it in the 5th century.

Both were working in heavily religious societies at the time, and Eratosthenes lived to be 80.

Originally posted by Crayfish
the world being flat has certainly been disproved, the existence of some sort of higher power has not. There's no real evidence for it either (as far as I'm aware, do feel free to point me in the direction of any you know of)


Before you even begin to look for evidence of God, you need to decide what constitutes evidence.

What does everyone think of the Vatican Astronomy Program?

Originally posted by evildrneil

And I've asserted that much of the bible is teaching parables and culturaly / time appropriate description - that isn't an assertion that it is a worthless book. Besides which, despite being raised as a Roman Catholic, I don't ascribe to Christianity as the one true religion (because I don't believe there is such a thing) so why should my oppinion on the bible lead me to humanism, which appears to me to function as much of a religion as any other?

So being raised as you were did you have your doubts about Mary?

Originally posted by evildrneil
It's hardly petty sniping to point out that your view of 'the faithfull' is entirely unrealistic - how can you possibly build an argument on the the merits of science versus the merits of faith when your view of 'the faithfull' is so distorted?


evildrneil
I wonder how my view of ‘faith’ is distorted. I’m sure that every one of those religionists interviewed in the film would agree with me that they can find all the answers they need in their good book (isn’t this why people go to worship anyway?). It is just that I see ‘faith’ as a negative whereas they see it as a positive. That US preacher clearly rejected evolution in favour of creationism because of his faith, and so would have the Jew-then-Muslim extremist because of his. These are the faithful. The days of faith as a non-threatening image of a Vicar judging the WI jam competition are, sadly, long gone. Faith increasingly means intolerance and extremism – would anyone deny that Al Qaeda’s crew see themselves as devout, faithful Muslims? Faith has distorted itself.

I’ve said before that the underlying messages of the bible (don’t kill etc) are indeed worthy messages, but also that you can purge all of that of god and have a Humanist agenda. With your fondness of Spinoza’s ‘god as nature’, humanism is a natural habour for those who are able to put supernaturalism behind them. But this was merely a suggestion and I’m sure they’ll manage OK without you!


Phanerothyme

I reject the assumption that religious beliefs should be free from ridicule. Where would it end? Affording respect to witchdoctors (very topical)? I am perfectly comfortable belittling the assumption that natural catastrophes are the work of the devil and make no apologies for it.

On scientists believing in religion, what I have problems accepting is how is it possible to spend one’s working day objectively evaluating data and rejecting anything methodologically unsound and then to hang up the white coat (or elbow patched corduroy jacket) and believe an earthquake to be god’s will. Or that heaven and hell exist.
There was a telling moment in Lord Winston’s recent TV series (The Story of God) where he was asked by Dawkins if he really, truthfully believed in a supernatural being. Lord Winston’s reply was to smile, shift his feet about, avoid eye contact and evade the question.
I think the real issue here is that people profess religious beliefs without really ever investigating what they are or mean. Hence why the default action for the UK population is to enter CofE on forms while never going to church, praying, or otherwise adhering to that religion. Before I started to critically engage with the questions of religion and secularism, I too would have entered CofE on any form presented, virtually unthinkingly reflecting the societal norms and upbringing.

So rather than deluding themselves, perhaps it should be unconsciously deluding themselves.

Originally posted by withnail
evildrneil
I wonder how my view of ‘faith’ is distorted. I’m sure that every one of those religionists interviewed in the film would agree with me that they can find all the answers they need in their good book (isn’t this why people go to worship anyway?). It is just that I see ‘faith’ as a negative whereas they see it as a positive. That US preacher clearly rejected evolution in favour of creationism because of his faith, and so would have the Jew-then-Muslim extremist because of his. These are the faithful. The days of faith as a non-threatening image of a Vicar judging the WI jam competition are, sadly, long gone. Faith increasingly means intolerance and extremism – would anyone deny that Al Qaeda’s crew see themselves as devout, faithful Muslims? Faith has distorted itself.

These are the extremes of the faithfull - the far outliers not the majority. Particularly you can't take the people involved in this film as being representative of 'the faithfull' as they were to all appearances chosen specifically to make religion appear intollerent and rediculous. Faith does not increasingly mean intolerence and extremism. It may be represented as such but the extremists are just that - the extremes. The US preacher you spoke of may have rejected evolution in favour of creationism but this type of belief is by far in the minority. As mentioned above, I was brought up as a Roman Catholic and attended an RC school which had excelent science teaching and teachers and certainly never taught anything like creationism and even in the religious education classes taught the creation myth in the bible as alegory and culture appropriate description.

I’ve said before that the underlying messages of the bible (don’t kill etc) are indeed worthy messages, but also that you can purge all of that of god and have a Humanist agenda. With your fondness of Spinoza’s ‘god as nature’, humanism is a natural habour for those who are able to put supernaturalism behind them. But this was merely a suggestion and I’m sure they’ll manage OK without you!

Once again I didn't say 'god as nature' but 'god manifest through nature' which is an entirely spearate concept!

As an aside I notice you still haven't really commented on scientists with religions faith - lets take a single example. Gregor Mendel an Augustianian monk (and so a man of faith) but also well known for his work in heredity. It is argued that his monograph on heredity in plants (Experiments with Plant Hybrids) is one of the most influential publications in the history of science and Mendel himself has been called the fatheer of modern genetics (and with that heredity and evolution). It seems he has managed quite well to combine faith and science unless you can point out how he has not?

Originally posted by bassplayer
So being raised as you were did you have your doubts about Mary?

Of course - but that is only typical of anyone raised in any faith!

Originally posted by evildrneil


As an aside I notice you still haven't really commented on scientists with religions faith - lets take a single example. Gregor Mendel an Augustianian monk (and so a man of faith) but also well known for his work in heredity. It is argued that his monograph on heredity in plants (Experiments with Plant Hybrids) is one of the most influential publications in the history of science and Mendel himself has been called the fatheer of modern genetics (and with that heredity and evolution). It seems he has managed quite well to combine faith and science unless you can point out how he has not?

see comments to phan.

Also, are you seriously denying the rise of religious extremism?

December 20, 1999

Thalif Deen At The UN
United Nations

The United Nations says there is a significant rise in religious extremism and intolerance throughout the world. "No religion is free from extremism," declares Abdelfattah Amor, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance.

Moreover, that US preacher claimed a weekly teleconference with Dubya defining him as a bit closer to power than a 'far outlier' wouldn't you say?

Also, according to the film, he is only in a slight minority as 45% of Americans sign up to creationism.

More importantly, if we continue to deny or explain away the demands and intrusions of religion, if we continue to appease it, we will only have ourselves to blame for whatever man-made apocalypse may result.

Originally posted by withnail
Phanerothyme

I reject the assumption that religious beliefs should be free from ridicule.

Fine. Who made that assumption?
Originally posted by withnail

On scientists believing in religion, what I have problems accepting is how is it possible to spend one’s working day objectively evaluating data and rejecting anything methodologically unsound and then to hang up the white coat (or elbow patched corduroy jacket) and believe an earthquake to be god’s will. Or that heaven and hell exist.

I think you have got it in one there - "what I have problems accepting".

Have you ever read any Francis Schaeffer? You are obviously intelligent, you might get something out of it. You might understand why religion and science are not mutually exclusive, and also how some of the world's greatest scientists were driven by a love of god, not man...

Originally posted by withnail
see comments to phan.

I noticed them - you just didn't actually answer any questions! Back to the sample I gave can you accept that Mendel was a man of both man of faith and science - if not then how do you deny the empirical evidence and still claim you take a scientific approach?

Also, are you seriously denying the rise of religious extremism?

Did I ever deny the rise of extremism - I deny that extremists represent the majority of the faithfull. Just in the sae way as I would deny that all scientists wear white labcoats, coke bottle lenses and have buck teeth despite the common representation...

Originally posted by withnail
Moreover, that US preacher claimed a weekly teleconference with Dubya defining him as a bit closer to power than a 'far outlier' wouldn't you say?

Firstly claimed (again any empirical or credible evidence if you want to be scientific at least do it properly!) and that doesn't make him part of the religious mainstream - maybe part of the political mainstream but thats another matter...

Also, according to the film, he is only in a slight minority as 45% of Americans sign up to creationism.

In that case they could well be out of step with the church!

Pope Pius XII stated that the Theory of Evolution did not conflict with Catholic teachings and Pope John Paul II called the Theory of Evolution "more than a hypothesis".

More importantly, if we continue to deny or explain away the demands and intrusions of religion, if we continue to appease it, we will only have ourselves to blame for whatever man-made apocalypse may result.

And just what is this disaster you forsee?

Originally posted by evildrneil
I noticed them - you just didn't actually answer any questions! Back to the sample I gave can you accept that Mendel was a man of both man of faith and science - if not then how do you deny the empirical evidence and still claim you take a scientific approach?


The reasons why science and religion are incompatible are explained much more lucidly than I could ever claim to do by Dawkins but given the evident distaste for his approach, why not try Atkins (Oxford): see below. But before that, allow me to pick you up on a couple of points.

Firstly claimed (again any empirical or credible evidence if you want to be scientific at least do it properly!) and that doesn't make him part of the religious mainstream - maybe part of the political mainstream but thats another matter...
[/QUOTE]

Sorry? If you read the post properly you will note that I’m not making any claim, the film did? I quote myself’ “Moreover, that US preacher claimed a weekly teleconference with Dubya defining him as a bit closer to power than a 'far outlier' wouldn't you say?” Which bit of that requires me to provide empirical or credible evidence? When I need to do so, I will do so, in the mean time to paraphrase your good self, if you want to engage in debate at least do it properly!


In that case they could well be out of step with the church!

Pope Pius XII stated that the Theory of Evolution did not conflict with Catholic teachings and Pope John Paul II called the Theory of Evolution "more than a hypothesis".

[/QUOTE]

Evangelical Chrisitians (i.e. the preacher in question) are very much the mainstream in the US as the Catholic continues its decline mired in sex scandals and a failure to recruit new priests– see here for a round up of relevant media clippings on the rise of the Christian Right :
http://www.secularism.org.uk/newsline.html
and on the decline of the Catholic Church here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-11-07-church-main_x.htm

Accordingly, whatever the Vatican may say on evolution, it is what the new lords of the manor say that is relevant to the debate. I don’t quite follow why you seem to be so keen to deny the rise of the evangelical Christian right in the US and all that that entails.


And just what is this disaster you forsee? [/QUOTE]

I would have thought events over the last few years would have been enough of an indicator. See also Sam Harris on the link between religious faith and violence. Nuclear Iran anyone?
http://samharris.org/

SCIENCE AND RELIGION - CAN THEY EVER BE RECONCILED?
PROFESSOR PETER ATKINS gives his answer - a resounding no. Religion is incompatible with science. Although many, including numerous highly respected scientists, aim to show that religion and science are complementary approaches to understanding the world and our place in it, the truth is that religious views are intellectually inconsistent with scientific views.
Only sentimental wishful thinking and cultural conditioning allows the two approaches to understanding the world to inhabit the same head. Religion is the institutionalisation of prejudice.
Science looks for simple concepts that underlie the workings of the world and sets them out in a way that, given patience and guidance are, in principle, accessible to everyone. Religion is a denial of our power of comprehension and puts for purported explanations cloaked in obscurity: we are not supposed to understand religion's "explanations", for we are presumed to be intellectually too puny. Science respects the power of the human intellect; religion denies it. Thus, science respects humanity; religion despises it.
Ethics spring from evolution, pragmatism and thoughtfulness about consequences. How much more admirable it is to base society's constraints on behaviour on a knowledge of our animal past and ability to think through consequences than on religious fiats based on faith. Although the clergy may be astute, kindly, circumspect and wise, it is deplorable that they should ration pleasure and regulate personal behaviour on the basis of private faith and institutionalised prejudice. Religion, with its kindly face, thwarts the aspirations of humanity.

Taken from http://www.secularism.org.uk/33009.html

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Fine. Who made that assumption?


Short term memory loss?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
It's exactly this kind of belittlement that Dawkins is encouraging, and indulging in himself.


I’ll have a look at Schaeffer when I get a chance though a little worried to find on a first google search that he “is credited with helping spark a return to political activism among Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists in the late 1970s and early 1980s, especially around the issue of abortion.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schaeffer.

I must admit that I am not often compelled to pick up a book written by such an author. However, in the spirit of 'know your enemy...'

Originally posted by withnail
Short term memory loss?

No. I'm inviting you to find somewhere, and someone in this thread who said "religious belief should be free from ridicule".

Schaeffer is the amongst the most well known intellectual apologists for evangelical Christianity.

Since you have never had a direct religious experience yourself (my assumption), you might develop your ideas of what actually constitutes religious belief in an individual, rather than taking Dawkins' word for it.

Dawkins takes on the easy targets - the wide eyed and maniacal preacher, the murderous american muslim in jerusalem, the sick and the crippled at Lourdes.

He stays well away from Schaeffer, and the intellectual edge. He doesn't even mention the Jesuits, and in a program about "Science vs Religion" (a bit like Technical Drawing vs Art) I'm simply amazed he hasn't been talked about the their record in Siesmology for example. Or visited one of their telescopes/observatories. Or talked to them about the big bang, or even more interesting - the stellar nucleo-synthesis of C12. (Hoyle - 'it's a put up job' - strong words from an atheist).

In fact, he conspicuously steers clear of anyone who might know as much about science as he does, but doesn't share his evangelical anitpathy for all things religious.

He used to command respect from me as evangelist for science, but when he starts up with value laden judgements of his fellow human beings, he's right down there with the TV preachers.

Originally posted by withnail
The reasons why science and religion are incompatible are explained much more lucidly than I could ever claim to do by Dawkins but given the evident distaste for his approach, why not try Atkins (Oxford): see below.

My distaste for Dawkins is not the message, skewed and unrealistic as it may be, but his manner of putting it across. I have an inherent dislike and distrust of frothing, fundamentalist preachers claiming they have the one true explaination of the world - and Dawkins fills that role admirably. I have read your quote from Atkins but it is not any reasonaing of why science and religion are incompatible but merely a belief structure that says they are incompatible. And herein lies the problem you have a belief structure that says that science and religion are not compatible and when shown empirical evidence that this is not the case you merely sidestep and cling tenaciously to your beliefs while claiming to take a scientific approach.

Sorry? If you read the post properly you will note that I’m not making any claim, the film did?

So you took the claim (however unlikely) on face value without any investigation because it came from a preacher you admire - hmmm you seem to be taking a lot on well ermm faith here!

“Moreover, that US preacher claimed a weekly teleconference with Dubya defining him as a bit closer to power than a 'far outlier' wouldn't you say?”

Once again you are mixing up politics and religion. A weekly teleconference with Dubya (if such a thing exists) may put him near the mainstream of politics that does not imply he is near the mainstream of religion does it? Now I chose the catholic church as my example of mainstream christianity as it is the single largest religious body in the world - far more likely to be mainstream than some preacher in the US chosen because of his fundamentalist views.

Which bit of that requires me to provide empirical or credible evidence? When I need to do so, I will do so, in the mean time to paraphrase your good self, if you want to engage in debate at least do it properly!

You are making or repeating claims based upon a program you have seen with nothing to back it up. That appears to me to be traking the words of your preacher on faith and not using any sort of scientific rational argument, providing empirical evidence or even being able to form an argument to back up your claims in the face of contradictory empirical evidence.

Evangelical Chrisitians (i.e. the preacher in question) are very much the mainstream in the US as the Catholic continues its decline mired in sex scandals and a failure to recruit new priests– see here for a round up of relevant media clippings on the rise of the Christian Right :
http://www.secularism.org.uk/newsline.html
and on the decline of the Catholic Church here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-11-07-church-main_x.htm

Accordingly, whatever the Vatican may say on evolution, it is what the new lords of the manor say that is relevant to the debate. I don’t quite follow why you seem to be so keen to deny the rise of the evangelical Christian right in the US and all that that entails.

I haven't denied it, what I have denied is that the rabid evangelicals of the US are the mainstream. Whatever you may say about the catholic church, it is still the largest religious body in the world and so has rather more claim to being mainstream than any evangelical group.

[I would have thought events over the last few years would have been enough of an indicator. See also Sam Harris on the link between religious faith and violence. Nuclear Iran anyone?

Casting a nuclear Iran as an entirely faith based problem is taking a rather narrow view of the subject - there are very much political and economic dimensions to the problem which if you overlook you are seriously oversimplifying the situation.

Now if we are going to talk about potential man made armageddons how about global warming - a situation brought about by increasing industrialisation and so rooted in science? Is that not as much of a threat to the world as the possibility of Iran getting nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by evildrneil

Once again you are mixing up politics and religion. A weekly teleconference with Dubya (if such a thing exists) may put him near the mainstream of politics that does not imply he is near the mainstream of religion does it? Now I chose the catholic church as my example of mainstream christianity as it is the single largest religious body in the world - far more likely to be mainstream than some preacher in the US chosen because of his fundamentalist views.


So evangelical Christians are not the mainstream in the US. Well, this time would you like to back that assertion up? I have already offered resources that indicate the opposite in those media cuttings that I provided and which you either haven’t bothered to read or have for some unknown reason dismissed. FYI, the 2002 Pre Research Council survey indicates that protestant Christians in the US outnumber Catholics by a ratio greater than 2 to 1. For the empirical evidence you so crave: http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

And now it’s the global catholic church you want to refer to when we are talking about the US.Your propensity to jump around is making me quite dizzy!


Originally posted by evildrneil

You are making or repeating claims based upon a program you have seen with nothing to back it up. That appears to me to be traking the words of your preacher on faith and not using any sort of scientific rational argument, providing empirical evidence or even being able to form an argument to back up your claims in the face of contradictory empirical evidence.


Er, no. I am reporting what was in a film – is that so difficult to grasp? The onus is rather on you to find contradictory evidence if you are refusing to accept the content of that film. Are you claiming fraud on behalf of the producers? If so, take it up with Channel 4, if not, what are you saying? Again, you are making nonsensical requirements to present empirical evidence where none is needed and I’m beginning to doubt that you grasp what this actually means.

Originally posted by evildrneil

Casting a nuclear Iran as an entirely faith based problem is taking a rather narrow view of the subject - there are very much political and economic dimensions to the problem which if you overlook you are seriously oversimplifying the situation.


Where did I deny the importance of political and economic issues?! However, if Iran’s nuclear issue resolved mainly around political and economic issues then it wouldn’t be an issue. It is the very fact that Iran is an Islamic theocracy with a particularly poor record on anything from human rights to democracy to threatening other states, which means that faith is a central issue here. And, by the way, theocracy means a political state run on religious grounds so I’m not sure where that leaves your desire to separate them out.

Originally posted by evildrneil

Now if we are going to talk about potential man made armageddons how about global warming - a situation brought about by increasing industrialisation and so rooted in science? Is that not as much of a threat to the world as the possibility of Iran getting nuclear weapons?

Now we’re onto global warming!
All this careering around that you seem to enjoy is becoming more than a little tiresome.

I prefer debate to this monotonous nitpicking. As you offer rather more of the latter and don't seem to have anything of interest to bring to the discussion, here endeth my responses to you in this thread.

Originally posted by withnail
As you offer rather more of the latter and don't seem to have anything of interest to bring to the discussion, here endeth my responses to you in this thread.

I hope that doesn't go for me too, as I was finding our exchange interesting.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I hope that doesn't go for me too, as I was finding our exchange interesting.

No, it doesn't. I find your posts both engaging and challenging, but I'm not sure I have the time to doing the reading required to respond adequately! Religion, philosophy and history of science are not my areas of specialism but, increasingly, it is clear that these areas deserve our attention.

Originally posted by withnail
I prefer debate to this monotonous nitpicking. As you offer rather more of the latter and don't seem to have anything of interest to bring to the discussion, here endeth my responses to you in this thread.

I think it's rather rich of you to claim about other people jumping around given your responses!

However if you want a debate (which you have so far seemed incapable of:

You claimed that:

there is absolutely a contradiction in being both religious and scientific and those who proclaim themselves as both scientific and religious are fundamentally deluding themselves.

I pointed out numerous people in the past who have had both strong religious beliefs and gave the example of Gregor Mendel an Augustinian monk and later priest (so a man of faith) who is also arguable the father of modern genetics and published on his scientific experiments with plants (so a man of science). Now obviously this case contradicts your belief. Can you make a rational and resoned case for your belief or are you simply clinging to it in the face of the evidence? Please not that quoting someone elses belief does not constitute evidence as that is simply an argument of 'well someone else shares my beliefs so I must be right'.

I look forward to seeing some response to this rather than further avoidance :)

Perhaps we should all attend this and report back?

Debate: Religion and Science - Are They Compatible?

Wednesday 25 January 2006, 6.45pm Conway Hall (London)
To discuss this, Dialogue With Islam Forum in association with the South Place Ethical Society bring together Alun Anderson (Editor of New Scientist magazine), Prof. Alister McGrath (Christian Scholar from Oxford University), Norman Bacrac (National Secular Society), Dr Salim Fredricks (Muslim Scientist and Writer). The event will be chaired by Dr Raj Persaud. Tickets: £3 on the day or £2 if reserved beforehand (Email reserve@dialoguewithislam.org ).

Just to remind peope, the best program in the world is about to start.

Part 2 -

Two-part series in which evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins presents God as an extremely unpleasant fictional character and suggests that religion is nothing more than a cause of pain and conflict. In the second part, Dawkins explains how religious faith acts like a virus which is particularly virulent to the young. He tackles the rise of faith schools in Britain and argues that religious education saddles our children with evident falsehoods and an inflexible moral outlook.

Well, I thought the second programme was as good as the first! I agree with him totally, and thought he presented the case for Atheism better than I ever could have done.

Well after watching the show tonight, it appears Richard Dawkins is nailing religion up on a cross and giving it a damn good thrashing.

I particularly liked the part about the 'hell houses' where people are 'educated' to believe that if you commit such sins as being gay and having an abortion will lead you down the dark path to hell.

Also the learning centre for christians where 'Noah's Ark' appears in a science lesson.

The more I see the show- the more I wonder how gullible people must be in their lives to swallow such religious claptrap.

I'm loving everything about the show as it finally shows religion as what it truly is- a way to control all of us, while being homophobic and racist and down right sexist as well.

Good on Richard Dawkins- the man is a legend for me :)