Religion
Related: About this forumArchbishop takes on atheist Dawkins
(UKPA) – 1 day ago
The Archbishop of Canterbury and atheist Professor Richard Dawkins are set to go head to head to discuss man's greatest question.
The leader of the Church of England, Dr Rowan Williams, will meet Britain's most famous non-believer to take on the complex subject of "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin".
The pair - who seem unlikely to find much common ground - will be joined by philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny at the event at Oxford University.
The discussion, which organisers expect to be "invigorating and enlivening", is fully booked but will be streamed live online on February 23.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h7LbH4byUlqSuWIjHofWSIkFQagQ?docId=N0452241328879816245A
I wonder if this will be pay per view and who's wearing the light trunks.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NAO
(3,425 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)On to Round 2.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Or maybe they can, it's just that no one can point to any "truth" about our world that came from religion at all. So Williams is making a false equivalency in order to try and build credibility. He has failed.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)truths in it. However, when the scope of the search for "truth" is limited to what one can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch - indeed anything outside of that very narrow perspective will not be recognized or considered.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I see that your schtick has not changed. Yawn.
Have a nice day. 
humblebum
(5,881 posts)challenge opinions around here aren't we? Or has that changed,too?
You may not consider the distinctions between your definition of truth and someone else's to be of any importance, but I feel that it is. And while opposing views are still allowed here, I will continue to express them. And thanks for the welcome back.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You were saying something? Sorry, I tuned out at the letter A.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)Oh yeah, from you, without being able to provide any example.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Some other "senses" and ways of thought that ONLY RELIGIOUS believers have? Isn't that kind of like saying some people have superior rights and authorization to state certain established facts than do others?
So, please, Mr. Humble, tell us what "truths" religion has taught you from other dimensions other than"what one can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch - indeed anything outside of that"... and tell us how you came about such "truths" other than to imagine them and/or make them up in your own mind, subject to final assertion from others who have done the same thing and come up with completely opposite conclusions?
Please list out those "truths" we cannot come up with from "what one can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch". We al want to learn from your insights, so superior to our own..
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Don't expect examples, for we are not among The Chosen.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)I saw a rabbit come out of a hat.
I could believe in rabbits.
But Mr Humble? never seen any magic from him. Have you?
I DO know another way of knowing, when my woo woo radar goes off. I suspect you know that one, too.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)as soon as you or one of your fellow parrots of this idea actually provides some substative proof that they exist, and detailed descriptions of what they are and how we use them (and how they are not aggregations of the senses we already know).
humblebum
(5,881 posts)If you didn't pick up on it then or check out all of the sources mentioned, you never will. So I would have to question who is doing the parroting here since you are asking the same old tired questions.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)So does your argument.
That was my point.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)There have been dozens of threads (at least) where you've been asked to explain what these other ways of knowing are and to give concrete examples of what knowledge they've provided, but the most that you've ever offered are suggestions that hearsay and imagination are among them, neither of which are ways of knowing. They're great ways of supposing, but supposition isn't knowledge.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Because, you know, you could always just link back to it if you'd been so clear in the past. That's what the rest of us reasonable people do.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)You could put an end to this by simply naming these other ways of knowing and giving concrete examples of the knowledge they've provided, so why don't you?
Here, I'll give you a copy-paste template for you to use, so all you have to do is fill in the blanks--a bare minimum of effort on you part:
So now it's to you: Will you copy and paste this template into your response and fill in the blanks (less effort), or will you construct at least one complete sentence avoiding the issue (more effort)?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)compared, hashed and rehashed way beyond ad nauseum. I think you were probably a part of that eternal discussion at one point, too. So, in response to your last question, no.
"You could put an end to this by simply naming these other ways of knowing and giving concrete examples of the knowledge they've provided..." - Been there, done that. You brought up the subject, you find the answers.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)BS...saying that you've already answered a question a long time ago, when you never actually have, and hoping people that don't know any better will believe you. if you could disprove your detractors' statements by the simple expedient of linking to where you had done what you said (a process that would take all of 60 seconds), you would. The fact that you don't should be all that anyone not familiar with your blathering needs to know.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)than anyone, that different types of, and examples of, OWK have been posted before, and by others besides myself. This little game you play surfaces every so often. You know it, I know it.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Fail.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)I gave you the opportunity (again) to simply offer a minimum of two words to make your case, and instead you expend way more energy saying that you aren't going to do it.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)searching.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)It looks like the first mention here about there being other ways was made in reply #6. That would make the onus on humblebum...oh wait...that's you...
humblebum
(5,881 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts) humblebum
(5,881 posts)it is to assume that nothing exists outside of that which can be detected by the five senses. Nothing was mentioned about "other ways of knowing."
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)You know full well what you were ham-fistedly implying.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)might try your own advise, because you well know that the topic has been discussed many times before. That's what the search function is for. Use it.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)I also know that at no time have you ever named or explained these "other ways of knowing."
Beyond that, I know the difference between "advice" and "advise."
humblebum
(5,881 posts)You have shown that you are very aware of what has transpired up to this point concerning the subject and yet you claimed, "If you actually gave "example after example" or anything similar, we wouldn't keep going over this," when, in fact, the subject has been discussed in depth, and not only by myself.
Just because you do not understand or not want to, does not mean that OWK don't exist, or that they are not widely used. You are doing nothing but touting the same old radical atheist narrow-minded methodology, and no amount of explanation will change that if indeed you are determined to continue in that mindset.
Click here to purchase valentine hearts!
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Ah.
"Link or it didn't happen."
Otherwise known as "put up or shut up."
humblebum
(5,881 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)a good and sensible answer.
Here is this "my" way of knowing, as a body-mind whole; and there are other ways of knowing, e.g. your way of knowing. Neither can fully know the mutual other way of knowing, but we can participate and share.
All these ways of knowing affect each other as they meet and mingle and create more ways of knowing.
(In my language 'way' of 'knowing' is a tautology, as 'way' and 'to know' are the same word.)
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Either way, I applaud that you're putting in way more effort than humblebum here.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)And they tell us not a single thing about truth, more about how human beings can become so dazzled by bullshit that they actually pay money to hear that bullshit.
Religion, Astrology, Numerology, a thousand other con games and confidence schemes, part of the history of human kind on this planet. Some people make a lifetime career of ripping off other people with foolish stories and unscientific theories.
That's the bottom line. Believe what you want, but pay them no money.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)atoms
molecules
quarks
the weak force
gama rays
xrays
dark matter
dark energy
evolution
plate techtonics
what were those limits again?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Finding reasons why his comments like that are ignorant fodder only seems to strengthen his resolve. Its both funny and sad to watch.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Do you not understand the limitations of empiricism or logical empiricism?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)If you are talking about somethign that shows human desires/behaviours/thoughts, then Religion can be good for that, though art might be better. However, Religion is useless for anything that can be counted and measured.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Religion can be good for what? Showing human desires/behaviors/thoughts? What truths about that comes from religion?
Psychology does a much better job.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)But even folks like Jung realized that the raw material for much of these archetypes came from religion. Art is a more healthy way to process this raw material, this "spiritus mundi" as he put it, and psychology can be even better, but the raw material that gets fed into these tracts comes from myth, the record of which is in religion. The difference being that the priest thinks that the material is good as is, to be taken literally, and not to be subject to interpretation. The artist and psychologist realize that these myths are to be processed digested, the nutrients separated, the waste eliminated, whereas those who take religion literally think the nutritious part is the fecal matter.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)
Bluerthanblue
(13,669 posts)
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Dawkins and Williams are both brilliant, this will be interesting and I'm sure very relaxed and friendly. Dawkins has done stuff like this before with Anglican clergy and they always get along well.
rug
(82,333 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I would love to watch this debate. Thanks for posting about it.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)There are athiest writers like T.H. Huxley, Carl Sagan, Nietzche, even Penn Gilette who can make Dawkins look weak, and there are many religous leaders (Jesse Jackson, Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu) who make Rowan Williams seem unqualified. With all due respect, if these two were not English, having access to the great anglo-american cultural empire, they might not be half as famous. But since they are where they were, the Guardian and BBC will fall all over this.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Compared to Dawkins he is a knuckle dragging ape. Compared to most, actually.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts) DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Penn may be a libertarian, but when it comes to explaining atheism to the MASSES he is better. The fact is, if Atheism does not try to talk to Joe Sixpack, it will lose out to the folks who have been courting Joe Sixpack for years.
Athiesm and Agnosticism should be the ones able to adapt to the world as it is, rather than what we wish it to be. Yes, Oxford educated sounds nice, but there are a lot of Oxford educated idiots. The real heroes are the people like the Jay Goulds, the Carl Sagans, who realized that they had to talk about their view to the people, not people admiring their sheepskin.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Your original points was
There are athiest writers like T.H. Huxley, Carl Sagan, Nietzche, even Penn Gilette who can make Dawkins look weak
Which is not an argument that Gilette can "talk to Joe Sixpack" but he is more intelligent than the "overrated mind" of Dawkins (and, laughingly, that he should be included in the same company as Nietzche, Sagen, and Huxley). Which is absolute bullshit. Now, if you want to talk about "Joe Sixpack," we can do that, but we need to finish the "Gilette is a stronger mind than Dawkins" argument first. You should probably just admit you lost that argument.
And are you arguing that Nietzche also talks to Joe Sixpack?
Just admit you were wrong.DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I can concede that Gilette may not be equal to Dawkins on biology, however, being able to sell a non thesit point of view should count, as that is what Dawkins at least pretends to do through his library shelf worth of books. However, I will grant that he is not equal to Dawkins in overall IQ or schooling, which means that Dawkins can join the estemmed ranks of edicated, high iq people that fall far short of the goal.
As far as Nietzche and Joe Sixpack, most of his writings are not adressed to joe sixpack, no, but the fact that out of all the people mentioned, he is the name most likely to show up outside of academia does show he did reach a alrger audience. If nothing else, the idea that some kid named Joe Schuster read Nietzche and made a comic book character called "Superman" based on ideas in "Thus Sprach Zarathustra" (a book about a superhuman prophet telling of a "superman" that is to come.) mens that Nietzche reached minds outside of academia, that did reach Joe Sixpack. Granted, it could be an accident that people read this comic book and then started asking what a "superman/ubermensch" would be like, even using another term from the same book "superhero" to describe said people. Yes, Neitzche shows up elsewhere in comic book land, as the "mutants" of marvel wrestle with whether humanity is somethign to be cherished, or transcended, but that is no surprise considering that writers used to hop back and froth between Marvel and DC.
The point is not that Fred Nietzche invented comic books, which are very much Joe Sixpack, but that6 his ideas influenced people well beyond the Academic types.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)That clearly spread beyond Academic types.
But if we are talking about "spreading" atheism to Joe Sixpack, I don't know that that is really that possible. I think what Dawkins et al give is a voice to the atheists. Those that are atheists realize, from seeing Dawkins et al, that they are not alone. That others think like that. That it might be OK for that person to be out about their atheism. And THAT is going to cause your average person to think about switching over--seeing people they know being atheist and that we aren't baby eaters.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Well, there might be a debate on if that is possible. Some would say the Soviet Union was an attempt to do just that, and you can post a thread like "Was the Soviet Union a good idea?" and get myriads of responses that will say it was everything from a failure to the way of the future.
I do see what you mean about Dawkins giving voice to the athiest, showing that they are not demons. However, I think that as of right now, Dawkins has a problem communicating with the common person, which is something that could roll the whole stuggle back. For example:
http://wearecitizenradio.com/2011/07/11/20110711-rebecca-watson-on-richard-dawkins-sexist-comments-and-the-atheist-community/
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum
Now, I am not going to engage in the debate about whether Dawkins was being a sexist or just being clueless, that I would leave to the fine women in the feminist forum (and I would love to see what folks like Redqueen would say about it, but that is another OP) The point however is, that Dawkins, by virtue of lousy communication skills outside of academia, could have set the athiest movement back with women. This would be a tragedy, as frankly, since religion targets women, they could be some of the best vioces for the atheist and agnostic causes. That is why I am a bit loath to use him as a building point, because he may wind up undermining his usefulness just by being his arrogant self.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Try this (warning, it's about his use of the C word):
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/02/11/the-context-that-justifies-cunt/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/01/the-straw-woman-of-the-skeptical-movement/
He's not going to win any women to his point of view that way. That's what I call 'lousy communication skills'. And I can't see 'lousy communication skills' from Dawkins, who has sold over a million copies of one book, and who gets brought back, time after time, to make TV documentaries.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)But how does that change what Dawkins said? I brought that up to show that yes, Dawkins can be wrong about things. Also, if being on Television is some barometer, you could let any number of people in through the door, both good and terrible.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)not fact. I would take Dawkins over Penn any day but that is also an opinion. To dismiss anyone who is educated has been a conservative meme for too long so why use it hear at DU?
Dr. Gould (not Goulds) and Dr. Sagan are dead. It is hard to argue with dead people unless you think they can be reached from the "beyond." The debate is in real time therefore dead people don't count, agian an opinion but I think the argument is valid.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)If you talk about the quality of the books, the books are still read, regardless of the author. We are talking about writing. Yes, Dawkins is alive, but unless we are in a position to talk to the man, we will know him through the wirtten word.
as far as dismissing educated people, note the side post I did about the sexist remarks. As an educated man, Dawkins should have known better than to say something as stupid as he did, but he did not. The fact he has not apologized does show some lack of forethought.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)but from previous post of yours in this thread I don't think you could grasp the concepts so it would not be worth elaborating to you. I will put you in the same category that I have placed Penn.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Which is of course, the classic means to avoid an argument, especially used by relgious folk. Being not religious, I would think better of you than to use that old ploy. Nonetheless, it is important to know when not to waste time, but it is sad that people who claim to be skeptical are capable of the same hero worship and argument twisting that the Holy Rollers are.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)as an atheist I take exception to that! I don't hero worship anyone and where you got that idea is beyond me. I have a lot of respect for Dawkins but I don't agree with everything he says. I am in the camp with Gould when it comes to evolution (punctuated equilibrium) where Dawkins dismisses that nuance.
Actually the way you represent yourself I am surprised that you are not "religious" (what ever that means). You sound more like some of the overly religious people I know so at this point I will dismiss your "I am not religious" statement.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Not at all, there are educated people who say great things, and vice versa. Rachel Maddow went to Oxford, so did Dawkins. I prefer Maddow, but as you would state, that is an opinion.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Penn Gilette, a loudmouth libertarian with a show on cable is a stronger mind than Richard Dawkins an Oxford educated evolutionary biologist. Some of the stuff I read on this board is amazing.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)The two do have one thing in common: they are two of the biggest hate figures for the current version of the British Christian Right.
Gore1FL
(21,130 posts)youtube is full of examples.
jaded_old_cynic
(190 posts)
Deep13
(39,154 posts)To get the truth, just examine the facts and figure out what explanation is consistent with the evidence.
tama
(9,137 posts)that there is will to debate and appear being right and/or more clever and skilled in debate tactics. They may have been fun in the old usenet days, but age grows weary...
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2012, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)
either of the participants expecting to convince the other on the spot. They are more for the audience, and hopefully to expose THEM to arguments, evidence and points of view that they hadn't been exposed to before. Even in that case, minds tend to change slowly, but they can be changed.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Fact is, neither of these two are likely to change flags. Yes, there have been times when people have changed, but that is not what anyone expects. What will happen is, in spite of themselves, they will likely bring up good points which can be chewed over by people on either side.
It would be good if this was a series, with others thrown into the mix, let's say, with Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist counterparts. I am not sure off the top of my head who would fit, but it is reasonable to think that some counterparts could be found, and by that I mean people who are respected in their fields as Dawkins is to Atheism, or the Archbishop is to Anglican thought. My only real disappointment with this is that, as it stands, it will only contrast a British form of Atheist thought with a British from of Religious thought, and even then, not even one that represents all of England, as it is unlikely that all Britons fall between these poles. On a lighter end, it would be fun if some like Slavoj Zizek were to show up, as he could probably throw these two the equivalent of wicked curve balls.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Arguments prove nothing. Those who were theistic before the debate will find reason to stay that way. Those who are skeptical will find reasons to remain skeptical. If the audience wants the truth, it should forget about ritualized arguments and exam the evidence in detail.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I still find it interesting to hear bright people with highly divergent views debate points which don't have definitive answers.
There was a series of debates on ethics on PBS at one point that I really enjoyed.
The nice thing about this level of debate is that it is likely to be quite civil and unlikely to include references to the other sidea sanity or intelligence. That alone is refreshing.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)The value of a good debate is it can bring facts and figures that you're unaware of, or ignoring, to your attention. By a "good debate," I mean a debate between honest, intelligent people. When honest, intelligent people disagree about something, we should wonder why. At the heart of the disagreement there is usually an unresolved issue. Awareness of unresolved issues can help tell you what facts and figures you are not currently taking into account.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)How many age old mysteries have been buried in the last two centuries?
Honest intelligent discussion does not win debates. Skill with semantics does. I know, I made a living doing it for eight years in the Ohio Court of Appeals. I was very persuasive, but proved nothing.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 14, 2012, 11:03 AM - Edit history (2)
Neither does science. It's actually considered one of its strengths.
I've listened to many debates where nothing was proven, but I learned about new ideas that I should research. My previous post didn't say anything about winning the debate.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The process of getting at the truth (or at least, getting closer and closer to it) is a long, drawn out process, and not necessarily a tidy or pretty one. But if the process if allowed to proceed, evidence and reason do generally win out over rhetorical flourish, personality, politics, and deliberate obfuscation, though it often takes time.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)As the ABC, (Archbishop of Canterbury), he had shown zero leadership skills at leading the Anglican Communion, which is a voluntary association of Anglican churches worldwide, including the Episcopal Church of the US, of which I am a member. He was once rumored to be a liberal, but has completely caved to homophobic contingents of Anglicans in Africa and elsewhere, and lamely threatened to make the Episcopalians and other liberals second-tier citizens of the communion for choosing gay clergy and bishops.
He is currently botching the politics of allowing women clergy in the English church of being elevated to bishops, something that happened long ago here. He is the Neville Chamberlain of Anglicanism, but with less spine.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)In fact, that's the core point of this - to be sure - joint article:
Feb. 18, 2012, (Manchester?) Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/19/religion-secularism-atheism-hutton-dawkins
rug
(82,333 posts)"I am as committed to liberalism as you. That's why my foundation is campaigning for secularism, not atheism."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/19/religion-secularism-atheism-hutton-dawkins
It seems to be a shift in emphasis.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Still not sure about "secular. "
And "Liberal" has way too much history.
Though to be sure? The Bible tells us to "be liberal" in helping the poor, giving them "gifts," nearly a dozen times (RevisedSV).
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Its a point lost on many believers, as they see anything that does not further a religious agenda to be anti-religious. I think Dawkins is wise to make this shift.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)I can just hear all the ministers smugly telling us, that Dawkins just gave up atheism, and now is one step closer to the inevitable truth.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)The more people learn, the less religion people feel they need, and that is a good thing. As for the smug ministers? Fuck 'em. We will see who is smiling at the end of the day, as they stand and stare at the 3 people left in the pews...
Bluerthanblue
(13,669 posts)I prefer it actually.
I don't feel the need to pressure others to adopt my perspective. I'm not threatened by those who see things differently. There are plenty of people in both the 'religious' and 'atheist' camps who are intolerant of anyone who doesn't ascribe to their paradigms.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)2nd paragraph, 1st 'letter':
"I personally – as opposed to my foundation – would be happy to persuade people towards atheism, but there is nothing illiberal about persuasion. "
That discussion is not about Dawkins; it's about the poll his foundation did to show that, of the people who are put down as 'Christian' in the UK Census, a lot do not consider following the beliefs of Christianity to be part of their being a Christian, and a lot also want less Christian involvement in British public life (eg bishops in the House of Lords) - ie 'secularism'.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)And a video will appear here 'shortly': http://fsmevents.com/sophiaeuropa/
('fsmevents'? His Noodly Appendage gets everywhere ...)