Dawkins at his best

[bdf]

If I could, I'd donate to DU so I could post this in a more appropriate place.

Clips from Dawkins' most recen Channel 4 (UK) TV production here. Consider that the UK is far more receptive to neo-Darwinism than the US.

Facts. Evidence. Logical thought. versus religious indoctrination.

(on edit, fixed duboard markup)

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Where would you like me to post a link to this thread?

[bdf]

5. I think one of the religious groups is more appropriate

And perhaps the group on atheism is most appropriate of all.

I think that all should see Dawkins, but I recognize that as a form of evangelism. I have no wish to impose my views on those who do not wish to hear (which distinguishes me from most religionistas).

[BrklynLiberal]

10. Well, you've been moved to Religion Theology.

I will post a link in the Atheism group as well.

[cobalt1999]

2. He's one of my heros.

As you can probably tell from my sig.

[Kutjara]

3. After years living in the UK, the biggest culture shock for me....

...on returning to the US was the stranglehold religion has on public discourse here. For many years, Britain has been acknowledged as one of the world's most secular countries. One study in the early 90s found that only 6% of the population attend church. While that figure has grown in recent years, largely as a result of immigration from Eastern Europe, it's still way below 10%.

Consequently, agnosticism and atheism are No Big Thing in Britain. Most Britons, when questioned about their beliefs, will either say "Church of England" in the same offhand manner they might use to tell you which auto club they belong to, or wave their hand vaguely and say something like, "well, I'm sort of spiritual, I guess." Religion just doesn't play a big part in people's lives. You're far more likely to get strange looks if you say "I don't like football (soccer)" than "I don't believe in God." In fact, fervent proclamations of religious faith are likely to be met with an embarrassed change of topic.

Only a few isolated whackos dispute Darwinian evolution in Britain. Anyone who starts publicly ranting about "Intelligent Design" is treated to the same wry smile of condescension Brits reserve for eccentrics and small children.

I would imagine Dawkins' program received the same reaction as the one Jonathan Miller produced a couple of years ago on atheism (in which he interviewed famous atheists and agnostics like Steven Weinberg, Daniel Dennett, and Dawkins himself): a small but respectable audience, positive reviews, and a few outraged letters from cranks nobody cares about.

[eppur_se_muova]

15. "seeking to maintain the balance of bishops between those who believe in God and those who do not"

The Cabinet Secretary informs Hacker that “modernist” is code for “non-believer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bishop%27s_Gambit

:rofl:
I wish I had grown up in a church half so amusing.

[bananas]

4. You can post it in the Religion/Theology forum

edit to add: Welcome to DU!

You don't have to be a donor to post there: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=214

[bdf]

6. I was told I had to be a donor when I tried

I am a firm advocate of keeping my message to those who are interested in it (even if only because they disagree with it). The board s/w told me I had to be a donor to post there.

I'd love to be a donor. Right now, financial circumstances do not permit it. Give me a couple of months...

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. In Religion and Theology? Are you sure?

I can see a thread there now, started today by someone who isn't a donor. It should only be the groups (eg Atheists and Agnostics) that you have to be a member to post in.

[bdf]

9. You're right

I tried Atheists and Agnostics, and assumed that Religion and Theology was the same.

It is my opinion that Atheists and Agnostics is the better place for this, because it is my opinion that it is wrong to attempt to espouse my beliefs where they are clearly not welcome. Religion and Theology is not, in popular opinion, a good fit to atheism.

As an aside, for several years I lived close to a UK university (which was a national joke) which was founded upon theology. I have been told that 50% of the theological students there end up with an enhanced faith and 50% lose all faith.

Lampeter (or, in Welsh, Llanbeder Pont Steffan) is a national joke, and a national disgrace. Its only saving virtue is its department of anthropology.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. If you take a look around this forum (now this has moved here)

you'll see plenty of 'robust' discussion involving atheism.

As far as evolution goes, practically everyone on DU accepts it as reality, whatever their religious beliefs; fundamentalists are overwhelmingly right wing, so don't post here (or only do so as trolls).

[moggie]

16. You now have a donor star

[beam me up scottie]

18. .

[moggie]

19. I'll eat an extra kitten to make up for it

[aikoaiko]

8. Chocolate Thunder at his best.

:hi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX7TSWStfVs

[edhopper]

12. I understand the reasoning

of putting this in the religion forum. But it really belongs on the Science forum. It's about the facts of Darwinian Evolution, that's science, not religion. Or even atheism.

[moobu2]

13. In his opening statements from this series Dawkins say’s

“In this series I want to persuade you that evolution offers a far richer and more spectacular view of life than any religious story, it’s one reason I don’t believe in God.”

This is an appropriate place for this since Dawkins says he intends to offer powerful arguments against the religious superstitious view about bio diversity. I haven’t watched the entire series but I’m sure Dawkins will do a superb job.

[edhopper]

14. I think I was reacting

to what seems like a knee-jerk reaction that evolution is somehow a religious discussion. Dawkins is first and foremost a scientist, and this show seems to be a scientific discussion.

[bdf]

17. Absolutely

Dawkins states explicitly that which many American biologists refuse to mention (or even deny): that neodarwinist evolution is incompatible with a belief in God.

Of course, some religious people believe evolution, but they're deluding themselves about the two being compatible. Which is hardly surprising, given that they already delude themselves about having an invisible friend with superpowers.

Evolution does not merely explain life without requiring God to be a part of the mix but it refutes the idea of God.

And there is no better way to understand that than to look at "Intelligent Design" (rebadged creationism). ID says that life is too complex to have arisen through evolution and that therefore there must have been an intelligent designer. ID differs from Creationism (I nearly spelled that "cretinism") only in that ID states (but does not really believe) that the intelligent designer could have been an alien from another planet.

OK, so the little green man parked his flying saucer here millions of years ago and played around with life. But the LGM is also too complex to have arisen by chance, and so a little red man must have been responsible for life on the LGM's planet. Oh, to explain the LRM we need a little blue man. And for the LBM we need a little cyan man. Etc. A chain without end. The only way to end that chain is to invoke one of the two other explanations: evolution or God·

But God is far more complex than any lifeform on this planet, so if life here could not have arisen by chance, neither could God. To explain God we need to invoke SuperGod. And to explain SuperGod we need HyperGod. And to explain HyperGod we need UltraGod. Another endless chain.

All of the philosophical and religious attempts to explain why God exists boil down to "God just is." And if that is permitted then we could equally say "life just is."

[heidler1]

20. I like your way of cutting religion off at the knees.

What you will find here on DU is that the religious types expect and receive considerable respect and if you step over the line your posts will very likely be labeled inflammatory. This then can cause the moderators to lock these post. I hope that you can voice your views without that happening.

IMO most of the posts here in R/T are written by Atheists and those who are religious whine about being bashed excessively, but don't let that stop you.

[bdf]

21. I speak truth to power, no matter what the personal cost (n/t)

[tama]

26. Wich Idea of God?

God as Bohmian Holomevement? God as Universe as Holistic (-> Atman=Brahman holography of holygraphy) Quantum Computer? God as Unobjectified All?

Endless chains of "strange loop" are excellently discussed in Hofstadter's books, btw.

What any real or any benign God certainly is not, is the culturally and linguistically dependent "universalist" metaphysics of subject-object dichotomy of Modern English (taken as "rationalism") trying to replace God Allmighty/Nature as subjective techocratic god-wish of human controll over objectified (non-inclusive) nature.

[ZombieHorde]

27. SuperGod, HyperGod and UltraGod.

This sounds like the basis for an awesome cartoon. I like HyperGod.

[pegleg]

22. I like the man's mind , but i do think he's a bigot - pure and simple

I was convinced of that after his calling for the need to abolish religion.

[anonymous171]

23. I miss Carl Sagan.

[Stump]

24. Thanks for this...

I'm gonna pop some popcorn and watch the whole series.

[Stump]

25. WTF?

No the videos aren't available any longer. I was down to the last episodes. Damn.