you'd be suprised. dawkins was at a debate a while ago wit a few people in it at a huge stadium and the crowd went from being like 80% agree to 40% agree on "is the catholic church a force for good?"
Good debate, but it seemed heavily set in the 'against' teams favour. (The Bishop pictured in part 1 struggles with english and from memory practices (if you could call it that) primarily in Africa.)
Pell doesn't seem to understand that pulling a nice sounding explanation out of your ass is not a reliable explanation, and he's doing it furiously. :/
I do wish that Dawkins was able to shoot down the god of the gaps argument better, regarding the expansion of the universe - people have explained unknowns with 'god' right through time, starting with where does the moon go at night, why do people get sick, where did life come from, etc, and making something nice and magical up as the answer has always been done, and has only ever impeded the movement to find the real answer.
Imo Dawkins needs to work in his persuasion skills. There's no point being correct if you can't connect with the audience and persuade them to join yor side. He seems to too readily resort to alienation/condescending remarks. I makes you wonder if it's more about him and demonstrating his intelligence, or convincing those opposed/on the fence.
That's what's wrong with the world - we care more about how nice someone comes off than whether or not they're right.
These people deserve others be condescending to them.
That may be true raven, but it's the world we live in. There's a brilliant book written by Porter QC entitled The Gentle Art of Persuasion. It was recommended reading at an advocacy course I recently took. As the title suggests, it's all about persuading people and how to adapt your delivery to suit the particular audience.
Yeah, that's just Dawkins. Being a condescending arse is a pretty serious character flaw for someone who's going around trying to convince people of something. Acting nice and being right aren't mutually exclusive.
I think you're right fade, he comes across as equal parts intellectually superior, frustrated proselytizer & book tour magnet.
At what point was Dawkins a "condescending ass"? I missed the first ~30 mins of the show but I thought he was pretty calm and collected most of the time.
He does have a very different approach to talking, which I think comes off as acerbic when he's contrasted against someone like Pell and church people in general.
That crowd was fucking embarrassing, as was many of Pell's answers. Godwin that shit up yo!
Dawkins was good. The crowd was shit, Pell was shit. He spouted so much misinformation and bullshit. I don't think he even understands science or how it works.
I was referring to speaking appearances and interviews in the past, not this particular one.
I haven't seen this Q&A, but I'm planning on iview catch up.
^ Heh, the words were ok. He would have been fine if he hadn't paused for an extremely long moment to reminisce about how he had prepared those young boys.
Funny how Pell was claiming that Christianity brought Rights/equality for Women and Children and Society. Then he denounced Gays as 2nd class/flawed people.
Religions greatest flaw is its Hypocrisy, it preaches love and understanding but only for its own kind.
There is no doubt Dawkins is highly intelligent and he crafts some very eloquent phrases but he lacks that ability to connect with an audience, hes at times only talking to a very tiny part of the audience that grasps his concepts and appears lost when people dont understand what he is saying.
Pell was a much better communicator and used much more simpler, down to earth, language.
I thought Dawkins made a real mess of explaining his agnosticism.
What he needed to say was what Randi says of Psychics, "Im not saying Psychics dont exist, just that Ive never found any credible evidence of one." Thats different to saying I dont believe in psychics.
I find Pell to be Racist, Bigoted and Mysoginistic.
It was a terrible debate, cringeworthy at times.
This is why I find QANDA to be extremely flawled. Pell would say something completely stupid, irrational and completely unbelievable - and the christian rent-a-crowd would go crazy and clap - then, the other 90% of the crowd felt the need to fill the void and clap as well, even if they completely disagreed with what the kiddy-fiddler was saying.
Happens all the time with the politicians as well.
^ Heh, the words were ok. He would have been fine if he hadn't paused for an extremely long moment to reminisce about how he had prepared those young boys.
Yeh, but the dopes in the audience that felt they had to laugh at it was irritating and embarrassing.
There is no doubt Dawkins is highly intelligent and he crafts some very eloquent phrases but he lacks that ability to connect with an audience, hes at times only talking to a very tiny part of the audience that grasps his concepts and appears lost when people dont understand what he is saying.
Pell was a much better communicator and used much more simpler, down to earth, language.
He just said a bunch of words that happened to go together. Everything Dawkins says actually requires you to pay attention and have some critical thinking facilities to evaluate. Pell was just telling stories tied together with "mythology" (his word!@!#); it's certainly easier to listen to.
It's one of the key dangers of religion - it's just easier than the alternative of actually doing your thinking for yourself.
I thought Dawkins made a real mess of explaining his agnosticism.
What he needed to say was what Randi says of Psychics, "Im not saying Psychics dont exist, just that Ive never found any credible evidence of one." Thats different to saying I dont believe in psychics.
Yeh, I sort of agree, but I think it made a bit more sense if you've read the God Delusion and are familiar with his 7 point scale.
At the end of the day arguments about agnostic/atheism are soooooooo boring though and dragging Dawkins in to any of them is similarly boring.
To be honest I'm starting to think all of this is a waste of Dawkins' time. I quite like listening to him talk, but I think society would probably be better off with him in a lab doing actual evolutionary biology stuff. I think any remotely competent debater who just happens to be an atheist could have held their own easily with Pell, or most other church members.
Yeah, I tend not to watch it as much these days for that reason. Insight on SBS is a little better.
Tony Jones isn't too bad as a moderator, but the problem is with the format.
Rushing through both sides of twelve questions in 60 minutes doesn't give much time for decent answers and debate. Then panel members gets reined in if they try to call other panel members on their bullshit. They'd do better if they picked a topic and stuck to it, a lot of the regular show questions bounce around between extremely complex topics.
On screen tweets, audience political polling & now qanda voting are another set of distractions.
Yeh, but the dopes in the audience that felt they had to laugh at it was irritating and embarrassing.
Agreed. Dopes in the audience are one thing, then they cut to Dawkins and he was joining in which I thought was even more disappointing and embarrassing.
There is no doubt Dawkins is highly intelligent and he crafts some very eloquent phrases but he lacks that ability to connect with an audience, hes at times only talking to a very tiny part of the audience that grasps his concepts and appears lost when people dont understand what he is saying.
Pell was a much better communicator and used much more simpler, down to earth, language.
It's funny, people are saying that Dawkins comes across as condescending yet they then complain that he doesn't "connect" with his audience by talking down to their level.
To me Dawkins comes across as someone who is frustrated because he is trying to treat his audience as intelligent but is continually responded to in an unintelligent fashion. Frustration is not condescension, talking to someone as if they were mentally challenged and didn't have the capability to understand something would be condescension. I think the way he responded to the big bang question proves that he had far too much faith in the intelligence of the people he was responding to.
I have to admit, he was on pretty good behaviour in that Q&A appearance. In a lot of cases he was content to let Pell talk himself around in circles.
Dawkins' frustration is clear though, especially when the other side (deliberately or otherwise) misinterprets his comments to be the exact opposite of what he's trying to say. When he lets that frustration get the better of him it can occasionally slip into condescension.
I started to nod off when they dipped into English language semantics. It's difficult to connect with an audience that readily laughs when you're only trying to present a clear definition of laymans terms in order to prevent being misunderstood.
While Pell and his squad was teetering about Dawkin's statement that "nothing" is difficult to empirically define, and suggesting that he perhaps hadn't even read Krauss' book - Dawkins and Krauss were having that very conversation in February, at around 47 minutes -
Am I the only person who thinks that the whole creation vs evolution debate is just a big fucking waste of time? Both parties are never going to settle on what the other party believes in, so who gives a fuck. On one side you have the creationists who happily believe that the universe came to be due to some supernatural being, and on the other you have the evolutionists/scientists who try with all their might and arrogance to convince them they are nuts and believe in horseshit.
I'm sure there's a bigger picture in this debate, i.e. parents "brainwashing" their children to believe in God (which I believe is wrong), etc.. but if believing in God gives one a sense of hope or whatever, who gives a shit. People always have a choice in what to believe in, maybe not when they're a kid being forced to go to church but when they grow up they can make their own decisions surely.
There's a difference between educating a person who wants to learn, and forcing your knowledge down their throats. Both parties are guilty in this matter, but Dawkins seems to do it in an arrogant "I am right, you are wrong you dickhead" way. I don't get the love for him.
I've never really bothered with this whole thing, but am I missing something here that's right in front of my face? Why do people care so much?
More than just being stupid, it's harmful to many people - such as the homosexuals driven to suicide each year, or the women mutilated and spending their lives hidden under a cowl, made to feel ashamed, or the doctors killed for providing abortion treatments, or the sick denied or talked out of treatment due to magic stories and powerful authority handed over to mad individuals who rule and instruct their lives (if you've ever been part of a church, almost any church, you will have seen far too much of this, regardless of how happy the cult appears from the outside).
One does not simply get indoctrinated into a religion as a child and then leave it behind. It sticks in your internal classifier forever, like a disease of the mind, one which you then will constantly fear is going to drag you back if you're ever at a weak point.
There's also that many of us perceive the repeated teaching of such ways of thinking (the low standards of evidence - an issue shared identically with the likes of astrology, ufo enthusiasts, conspiracy theory folk, ancient astronauts, etc) as problematic, and a flawed taught method of thinking working directly against people's own desires - especially dangerous when world leaders (and thus to a similar extent, democratic voters) are thinking that way.
Ask yourself if you have a problem with cults, and then ask, and then ask whether the same problems apply if it simply gets big and familiar and important to more people? Scientologists, for example, have "another opinion." Is their spread something which you can be non-negative about?
Am I the only person who thinks that the whole creation vs evolution debate is just a big fucking waste of time? Both parties are never going to settle on what the other party believes in, so who gives a fuck. On one side you have the creationists who happily believe that the universe came to be due to some supernatural being, and on the other you have the evolutionists/scientists who try with all their might and arrogance to convince them they are nuts and believe in horseshit.
The arrogance of those scientists trying to understand the universe!
I will never understand people who claim that scientists are arrogant for discounting the likelihood of a religious idea. It's the people who say "God did it" that are the very definition arrogant. Just because they say it in an appealing and condescending manner that you feel comfortable with doesn't change the fact that they are the ones that are not allowing discussion on the topic on account of them believing there is no other way it could have happened.
The creation of the universe is an incredibly interesting and important topic, arguing with religious people about it isn't productive but because of the unfortunate nature of western society we have to answer to those who believe in magical fairy tales. If our politicians weren't predominantly evangelistic fucktards or spineless atheists then maybe it wouldn't matter but that Pell bigot has the ear of our potential next PM so it matters a lot unfortunately.
Heh, I don't even care if people say that they're confident and condescending - because, you know what? They fucking deserve to be. Just because there is an argument does not mean that there are two equal sides, and I have been on both sides of the religion/anti-religion argument (well, all three sides, I went through a stage where I also tried to insist that it didn't matter).
The arrogance of those scientists trying to understand the universe!
I will never understand people who claim that scientists are arrogant for discounting the likelihood of a religious idea. It's the people who say "God did it" that are the very definition arrogant. Just because they say it in an appealing and condescending manner that you feel comfortable with doesn't change the fact that they are the ones that are not allowing discussion on the topic on account of them believing there is no other way it could have happened.
The creation of the universe is an incredibly interesting and important topic, arguing with religious people about it isn't productive but because of the unfortunate nature of western society we have to answer to those who believe in magical fairy tales. If our politicians weren't predominantly evangelistic fucktards or spineless atheists then maybe it wouldn't matter but that Pell bigot has the ear of our potential next PM so it matters a lot unfortunately.
On the topic of arrogance, I was mainly talking about Dawkins there. He comes across as very arrogant. I know he's trying to educate people, but the way he does it just doesn't sit well for me. From the videos I've seen of him it seems as though he belittles other people on their beliefs. But I guess you would get to that point if you've tried to convince hordes and hordes of religious people to no avail. You are right about the religious people whose answer to everything is "God did it".
In reply to the creation of the universe being an important topic, although I've personally wondered why we are here, it's not something I mingle over day after day (i.e. it's not important to me). I just live my life and try to be the happiest I can personally be, and I'll let the scientists figure out to their best presumption (might not be the best word) why we are here. And if they come up with an answer I'll be interested for sure, but I doubt their conjecture (for that is what it will be, as I doubt anyone -- anytime soon -- could *prove absolutely* why we are here) could ever be taken for the complete truth of the matter. What do you mean when you say it's important? How? Is it because once the answer is ascertained that all the religious people out there can be "educated"? (like they'd even listen anyway)
I'm presuming that you've never been religious, and see it as something like another culture which you know very little about?
True. I don't know much about the world of hurt being religious has put upon people. I guess I'm pretty ignorant in that regard, but that's the way the world works and it's not going to change in the blink of an eye or over a single debate.
More than just being stupid, it's harmful to many people - such as the homosexuals driven to suicide each year, or the women mutilated and spending their lives hidden under a cowl, made to feel ashamed, or the doctors killed for providing abortion treatments, or the sick denied or talked out of treatment due to magic stories and powerful authority handed over to mad individuals who rule and instruct their lives (if you've ever been part of a church, almost any church, you will have seen far too much of this, regardless of how happy the cult appears from the outside).
One does not simply get indoctrinated into a religion as a child and then leave it behind. It sticks in your internal classifier forever, like a disease of the mind, one which you then will constantly fear is going to drag you back if you're ever at a weak point.
There's also that many of us perceive the repeated teaching of such ways of thinking (the low standards of evidence - an issue shared identically with the likes of astrology, ufo enthusiasts, conspiracy theory folk, ancient astronauts, etc) as problematic, and a flawed taught method of thinking working directly against people's own desires - especially dangerous when world leaders (and thus to a similar extent, democratic voters) are thinking that way.
Ask yourself if you have a problem with cults, and then ask, and then ask whether the same problems apply if it simply gets big and familiar and important to more people? Scientologists, for example, have "another opinion." Is their spread something which you can be non-negative about?
- I doubt religious people are the only people who drive homosexuals to suicide every year.
- The treatment of muslim women in the middle east is fucking disgusting, I agree. I can understand in that regard why religion is bad. I'm just glad that it isn't like that in the western world.
- Don't know much about the doctors killed for providing abortions!
- In regards to the sick, I agree. Nothing beats science in healing the sick, certainly not a "prayer".
I guess you are right about how one can not just "forget" religion, especially if they were brought up that way. Scientologists are nut bags, but their existence hasn't bothered me personally. I guess that's probably the reason behind my indifference, it hasn't affected me, so I don't care much.
They make more of themselves, and these things are good at making it difficult to leave once recruited. It maybe isn't easily imaginable to those with no personal experience - perhaps try going to an active church, and listen when it comes to the regular talk on recruitment or the talk on needing to drop things to do more of 'god's work' - but perpetuating religions absolutely do hope and faithfully-intend to take over the world, they are constantly talking about it amongst themselves, because they believe that shit. It is all encouraged by 'sermon' giving madmen who essentially just pull such divine instruction out of their ass with visions of grandeur for their religion, and many work, or otherwise contribute, towards such goals.
There is more to religion than weak possible origin theories with no other ramifications - that wouldn't perpetuate, there are promises of magical power and prophecy, and in private - even the friendly ones, if genuinely religious - are almost certainly talking about revelations, the spread of their religion x, dreaming about the day that it will come, etc. I've been there, I've seen it, I've done it, and I still encounter it a great deal due to having heavy prior-history there. They get drunk on those fairy tales, and it's scary and dangerous - a shitload of politicians are caught up in that insanity, put there by religious demographics. If you've not seen this talk, I recommend it - that is the frontrunning republican candidate in the US, and the others aren't much better, and they genuinely believe all the trappings which come with "just an alternative origin theory" - there are larger and dangerous ramifications born in, and encouraged by, ignorance. Even now, in the US, and possibly soon here too - given that Pell has the ear of Abbot - attempts to discuss climate change in the political sphere are being halted by religious insistence that it is impossible, quoting the bible. This isn't just a problem for people in the middle east. Did you know that abortion is illegal in Australia? If you're female, others have a right to your body over a few dividing cells because they assign a divine value to them.
Speaking out against it serves a purpose, reminding people how utterly stupid, unfounded, and unicorn-like it is, which weakens its ability to do all of the harm that it does. Hell, it gets discussions like this going. What Dawkins does - showing that religion itself is open to questioning, highlighting that it doesn't have to be that way even though it's familiar and possibly taught to you by your entire family - may not sway everybody, but it will work with some people, and any counter is a good counter on what would otherwise be an ignored subject. Most of the world is still religious, unfortunately.
Find somebody who has left religion, who was serious about it, and who does not claim that religion is a threat and blight to humanity which desperately needs more attention and objection, and I will give you a cookie.
In reply to the creation of the universe being an important topic, although I've personally wondered why we are here, it's not something I mingle over day after day (i.e. it's not important to me). I just live my life and try to be the happiest I can personally be, and I'll let the scientists figure out to their best presumption (might not be the best word) why we are here. And if they come up with an answer I'll be interested for sure, but I doubt their conjecture (for that is what it will be, as I doubt anyone -- anytime soon -- could *prove absolutely* why we are here) could ever be taken for the complete truth of the matter. What do you mean when you say it's important? How? Is it because once the answer is ascertained that all the religious people out there can be "educated"? (like they'd even listen anyway)
As Dawkins said on Q and A, science is trying to answer the practical question of how the universe was made, not the philosophical question of why we are here.
No one is trying to uncover the mysteries of the universe just so they can lord it over religious types, if you can't see why knowledge can be hugely beneficial then I don't think there is much hope for you.
As Dawkins said on Q and A, science is trying to answer the practical question of how the universe was made, not the philosophical question of why we are here.
Yep, he went even further and was clumsily trying to explain through analogy that the ultimate cruelty is that there may be no valid answer when the human condition prompts us to repeatedly ask the question 'why are we here?'.
" 'What is the colour of jealousy?' is a silly question" was his postulate, but I think at that point he lost the crowd because everyone knows it's green obviously (duh).
Here's another take on the debate. Seems like most people on both sides try and shoehorn all the events into a specific narrative that supports their opinion.
^ Paywalled.
Now I'm just left wondering what would bring someone to part with good dollars for the garbage that News Corp prints, especially the opinion pieces.
A
No one is trying to uncover the mysteries of the universe just so they can lord it over religious types, if you can't see why knowledge can be hugely beneficial then I don't think there is much hope for you.
Putting your personal attack to the side for one second, are you speaking about knowledge in general or knowledge about how the universe was created? If you're talking about knowledge in general, then yes I can see why knowledge is beneficial.
But how is knowledge about how the universe started going to benefit us? Do you know? Is it going to somehow advance our knowledge on space travel or something? Is discovering how the universe started going to cure cancer?
Assuming you are being rhetorical, thats a pretty myopic way to think of science, imagine early men had thought "How is fire going to help us, stop wasting your time and go pick some berries" they didnt know that it would lead to thinkgs like cars and planes and rockets.
Assuming you are being rhetorical, thats a pretty myopic way to think of science, imagine early men had thought "How is fire going to help us, stop wasting your time and go pick some berries" they didnt know that it would lead to thinkgs like cars and planes and rockets.
Don't really see how you can lump the discovery of fire and figuring out how the universe started in the same category. If it was cold, the need for fire stares you point blank in the face. Can't say it's the same (personally) with figuring out how the universe started. Not exactly sure anyone else here really knows either.
Don't really see how you can lump the discovery of fire and figuring out how the universe started in the same category. If it was cold, the need for fire stares you point blank in the face. Can't say it's the same (personally) with figuring out how the universe started. Not exactly sure anyone else here really knows either.
Nobody knows what you will be able to do once you find out what you don't yet know. People have asked 'why invest in science and research?' right throughout - you can't know what you're going to find out.
Two other points would be that it would be interesting to know (entertainment), and that the alternative of lies / fairy tales taken seriously by pastors used to raise cult-like followings is an insidious thing (social health & ethical point of view). Nobody wants to be lied to, as somebody who was, please think of others and how much you wouldn't want others to sit by if you were essentially born into ridiculous perpetuated fairy tale teachings.
Sometimes I reckon that humans understanding the origins and inner-workings of the universe is like plonking an ant in front of Citizen Kane and then asking them to explain its finer points to you. That's why we invent things like god and dark matter.
How am I supposed to know what would be achieved from knowing something no one knows? How about it may definitively rule out the existence of a god or not. How about it may give us greater understanding of physics that could lead to break throughs from anything to energy creation to faster than light travel.
If it didn't cure cancer I'm certain they will discover it may cause it.
But how is knowledge about how the universe started going to benefit us? Do you know? Is it going to somehow advance our knowledge on space travel or something? Is discovering how the universe started going to cure cancer?
Science investigates religion interprets.
Science gives man knowledge which is power
religion gives man wisdom which is control.
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Religion is not just the belief in god.
There is a lot of wisdom/experience in Religion.
It is a good council but so is Science.
Neither should ever rule though.
Yeah, sure - religion also fits into the larger category of cults like the situation in North Korea and such. It's just a subcategory on the assertion of gods.
One of the most accomplished scientists in the last century, Richard Feynman, gave a good short talk on the historical uselessness of 'religious' interpretations and similar, which Pell struggled with the idea of - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E383eEA54DE&t=3m11s
haha i knew he was gonna cop a pastin' for that one.
Its best to just no mention The Jews in Religious debates.
Unless you include a reference to the Holocaust™.
At the time that I thought he was just saying technologically, but now listening again, it actually sounds like he was measuring intellect by outcomes. Would hate to hear what he has to say about the Aborigines, or another group not privy to the same resources as others.
He also has that Christian-centric view limiter on history, where nothing beyond the biblical areas happened or is interesting.
Faaark I can't stand religious/make-believe people. This was just posted elsewhere, and has brought back a dozen buried angry years of forced youth groups and time around these nutjobs.
But how is knowledge about how the universe started going to benefit us? Do you know? Is it going to somehow advance our knowledge on space travel or something? Is discovering how the universe started going to cure cancer?
Because it changes or confirms our scientific model of the universe and everything within it. If you want specifics, an example would be that will most likely show solutions or at least show more detail to the current issues with the standard model:
To go a massive non-scientific leap, gravity as a force is a current issue with the model. Better understanding of gravity may lead to new ways of manipulating gravity. Think flying cars of manipulating gravity for space travel :P
Is discovering how the universe started going to cure cancer?
Most likely it will help, better understanding of radioactivity (both strong and weak force) have huge benefits towards cancer, both in radiation treatment and in the understanding of cancer cells itself.
But how is knowledge about how the universe started going to benefit us? Do you know? Is it going to somehow advance our knowledge on space travel or something? Is discovering how the universe started going to cure cancer?
Things that we're able to observe now happening in the universe won't be there in the future, ie the death/birth of stars and galaxies. They were happening 100s/1000s of years in the past and the light is just reaching us now.
Its important that these observations get recorded now regardless of whether it is helping or it will never be able to be observed again.
bahahaha, a christian friend of mine/ours just got on facebook and started complaining about us "zealous athiests" call in on ABC radio. Best reply ever:
"Calling us 'atheists' is tantamount to calling a black guy a nigger. The PC term is 'secular'."
:D
Nobody knows what you will be able to do once you find out what you don't yet know. People have asked 'why invest in science and research?' right throughout - you can't know what you're going to find out.
That's true, good point.
Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.
How am I supposed to know what would be achieved from knowing something no one knows? How about it may definitively rule out the existence of a god or not. How about it may give us greater understanding of physics that could lead to break throughs from anything to energy creation to faster than light travel.
If it didn't cure cancer I'm certain they will discover it may cause it.
I just thought that since you seem to feel so strongly about it that you would have done some research to back up your opinion.
Do you think that if it "definitively" ruled out the existence of a god that the Christians, Catholics etc will all immediately believe what's been discovered? They sure as heck aren't believing that the Earth has existed for millions of years or that we're descended from homo erectus. I don't think that debunking religion is a valid reason to pour all this money into researching the creation of the universe, although that would be a "bonus" in a way.
Most likely it will help, better understanding of radioactivity (both strong and weak force) have huge benefits towards cancer, both in radiation treatment and in the understanding of cancer cells itself. last edited by simul at 10:10:28 15/Apr/12
Thanks, that's interesting. I guess physics really is at the heart of everything.
PM
WWW
