Dawkins on the Late Late Show

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote:

Ultimately people want something that will help them get through their life irrespective of whether it is correct or incorrect which is entirely separate issue.

Is it fair to say that there’s evidence to suggest a hypothesis that presentations of the reasons for the implausibility of God do not strongly correlate to people to giving up religion? This hypothesis may be counter-intuitive, but seems to be born out by the facts. The conclusion it suggests is that people do not believe in God because it’s logical.

Of course, this would also raise the possibility that people embrace atheism for reasons that are not logical. (Cut to picture of tumbleweed blowing down street.)

For example, some accounts say that the First World War caused some to lose their faith on grounds that a just and loving God would not allow all that murder and mayhem. However, it’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that God’s gift of free will would allow exactly that. Many may have given up Catholicism because of the documented cases of abuse and misconduct by clergy. However, those cases only prove that some clergy don’t obey the doctrines that they preach – they don’t actually disprove the doctrines.

Ultimately, the field of study most likely to yield illumination is psychology. But there’s no point in telling that woman in the Late Late audience that the impact religion had on her life is not proof of truth. Where’s she supposed to take that? Go back to whatever black hole she was in? She’ll only give up religion if the alternative gives her the same outcome. What has logic and reason ever done for her?

stevejazzx wrote:

Well Paxman never agrees with anybody, in fact as I'm sure you're aware he is excellent at taking a contrary position.

I saw the Paxman interview. He took the contrary position in terms that Dawkins could relate to.

stevejazzx wrote:

Dawkins is not trying to save the world.

My understanding is he argues that religion is a source (and maybe even the main source) of the world’s problems. So, in a sense, he is trying to save the world.

stevejazzx wrote:

he can't get anywhere near such things during a 20 minute debate and quite frankly, who could?

As someone mentioned above, some of the atheists in the audience came closer to coherently expressing their views despite being subject to those same constraints. They might use arguments that are illogical, but they manage to communicate nonetheless. I’d expect more people to be engaged by the guy in the audience who said ‘My brother was very religious until I gave him a lend of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos. Now he’s content in atheism’. You'll appreciate there is no logic in that statement at all. But doesn't it communicate something? 'You know in your heart and soul its rubbish. Honestly, life doesn't end when you let go of it.'

Incidently, complexity of the atheist argument is not the barrier. Plenty of theological concepts are complex, but they get them across in simple ways. Shamrock, for example.

Dades

mathias wrote:

Arguing that we should abandon what has made us so successful and the dominant species on the planet ( our beliefs ! ) , is ludicrous

Atheism is about questioning "faith". If faith was never questioned throughout history we would not have had breakthroughs such as Galileo's support of heliocentrism. Do you suggest we now have nothing to gain from not questioning faith?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Dawkins begin with his a straw man. All Christians think they world was made in 6 days.
Quinn counters and points out this is a straw man, that many theists and Christians accept evolution. Dawkins has no point.
Quinn challenges Dawkins as to the origin of matter. This is similar to Aristotle's first argument, Dawkins cannot answer. He just says Science might out someday but theology does not know now, he has no evidence of this.

Quinn challenges Dawkins on free will. Dawkins can't answer, bizzarely Dawkins say he's not interested. This topic doesn't interest him. What type of debating tactic is that you say "you are uninterested"!
Quinn challenges Dawkins on morality, does Dawkins just think are dictated by genes, Dawkins cannot give adequate answer.

Quinn highlighted the boundries of Science and also threw a few questions that any philsopher would have well able for.
Dawkins cannot answer what is outside the boundries of Science or the Philsophical aspects of atheism / theism.
Dawkins did not get Quinn on anything, never made him contradict himself or never gave him a question Quinn couldn't answer.
Winner IMO
Quinn.

But Quinn basically used Dawkin's admission that science doesn't have the answers as a proof that God exists. That is the kind of spurious argument that makes you want to beat your (or someone else's) head against a wall.

It's a meritless argument made to sound clever.

mathias

Again, social evolution not the same as biological evolution.

In a social species there is no separation between biological evolution and social evolution , you must fit with the social group or be eradicated. Its an extended phenotype ( Dawkins )

Human biological evolution cannot be discussed separate from a social context as it is largely the social context that determines the possibiltiy of reproduction.

Zombrex

mathias wrote:

In a social species there is no separation between biological evolution and social evolution

They still aren't the same things. For one to manage to reproduce one must actually have sex. Within a social society social factors influence this aspect, but that doesn't mean the actual process of biological evolution is at all the same as the evolution of social and cultural ideas.

There are large areas of social evolution that have nothing to do with biological evolution, and vice versa. Viral marketing is one that springs to mind. Making people go see the newest Tom Cruise movie though fake internet sites, or watching how car design has changed in the last 25 years, isn't going to have much effect on the biological evolution of humans, though it is a fascinating study of social evolution.

mathias wrote:

Human biological evolution cannot be discussed separate from a social context as it is largely the social context that determines the possibiltiy of reproduction.

You are right, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Also you are talking about evolution as if it is a good thing. Why exactly?

stevejazzx

Tim Robbins wrote:

Wicknight wrote:

If you would like to counter, feel free. Otherwise your opinions on how biased or closed minded I am seem rather irrelevant.

Dawkins begin with his a straw man. All Christians think they world was made in 6 days.
Quinn counters and points out this is a straw man, that many theists and Christians accept evolution. Dawkins has no point.
Quinn challenges Dawkins as to the origin of matter. This is similar to Aristotle's first argument, Dawkins cannot answer. He just says Science might out someday but theology does not know now, he has no evidence of this.

Quinn challenges Dawkins on free will. Dawkins can't answer, bizzarely Dawkins say he's not interested. This topic doesn't interest him. What type of debating tactic is that you say "you are uninterested"!
Quinn challenges Dawkins on morality, does Dawkins just think are dictated by genes, Dawkins cannot give adequate answer.

Quinn highlighted the boundries of Science and also threw a few questions that any philsopher would have well able for.
Dawkins cannot answer what is outside the boundries of Science or the Philsophical aspects of atheism / theism.
Dawkins did not get Quinn on anything, never made him contradict himself or never gave him a question Quinn couldn't answer.
Winner IMO
Quinn.

Dawkins is a poor, I think one or two of the people that regularly post here could do better.

Wrong, I have to say wrong wrong wrong..just wrong.
Sorry.
Dawkins was too honest to insult Quinns stupidity.
Two men are debating about the existence of God and one of them asks an impossible question

where did matter originate?

Where does that get the argument? Nowhere. Aidan was right, Quinn simply talked over Dawkins until Dawkins squirmed. That does not make him a winner. The argument is now riduculous. Quinns supposed assertion being that if Dawkins can't explain the origins of the universe then there is more likley than not a God. The great debate of sorting out the inaccuracies of histroy and history of deities is gone, the great complexities of affilating credits to scientific theories, I'm talking to you Darwin, gone. Everything gone from a good argument because one of the debaters purposefully decided to sabotage it with nonsense.

Tim Robbins

stevejazzx wrote:

Tim Robbins wrote:

Wicknight wrote:

If you would like to counter, feel free. Otherwise your opinions on how biased or closed minded I am seem rather irrelevant.


Wrong, I have to say wrong wrong wrong..just wrong.
Sorry.
Dawkins was too honest to insult Quinns stupidity.
Two men are debating about the existence of God and one of them asks an impossible question

where did matter originate?

Where does that get the argument? Nowhere. Aidan was right, Quinn simply talked over Dawkins until Dawkins squirmed. That does not make him a winner. The argument is now riduculous. Quinns supposed assertion being that if Dawkins can't explain the origins of the universe then there is more likley than not a God. The great debate of sorting out the inaccuracies of histroy and history of deities is gone, the great complexities of affilating credits to scientific theories, I'm talking to you Darwin, gone. Everything gone from a good argument because one of the debaters purposefully decided to sabotage it with nonsense.

The origin of matter is essential to any meta-physical argument it's been that way since Aristotle.
Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_cause

stevejazzx

But how does that prove God exists? After all that was his argument. we can't explain it so.................. !GOD!

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

But Quinn basically used Dawkin's admission that science doesn't have the answers as a proof that God exists. That is the kind of spurious argument that makes you want to beat your (or someone else's) head against a wall.

It's a meritless argument made to sound clever.

And can be countered with the teapot/unicorn/dragons argument, of which the same can be said!

Thus: fix beady eye on opponent, and ask "so, you're saying that because we don't know how matter started, we should accept that God did it? The same argument applies to accepting that a hippopotamus did it. Or a lemon. Not only that, but if it does need a god, then which one? Thor? Buddha?".

After all, if you're going to be offensive, you should at least be getting something out of it. It is a silly argument, but you can't get away with just saying "well, that's a silly argument" - you need to show how.

cordially,
Scofflaw

mathias

Also you are talking about evolution as if it is a good thing. Why exactly?

No , pardon me if I gave that impression , Im talking about it as if its a fact , its neither good nor bad , it just is , interpreting its consequences as good or bad is a very human trait , but its completely without a moral.

My whole point is , that Dawkins , in the God Delusion , seems to argue that religion is a human creation or concept outside of evolution ,somthing we could choose to abandon , whereas I say its part and parcel of it , we are a species genetically pre disposed to be part of a group , with all its complexities , rituals , etc.
If we werent born into one , we would find one to fit into , or make one. Its part of our genetic makeup and is a hugely successful evolutionary strategy.

We could no more abandon that than stop breathing , like I said , so no matter what , a complex social structure is an offshoot of being part of a social species and religion or some kind of popular belief system is part of that , like it or not , and in most cases , people will choose a belief system they like , over an ugly truth any time.

That is the way we are , and I dont think theres very much we can do about it.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

And can be countered with the teapot/unicorn/dragons argument, of which the same can be said!

I wasn't going to mention teapots because they have a tenancy to send things OT.

Dades

mathias wrote:

That is the way we are , and I dont think theres very much we can do about it.

I don't think that idea gives the human race much credit.

Not wanting to give it up is very different from being incapable of doing so. The key to beating any "condition" is understanding it, and in evolutionary terms any real understanding of the world around us has only just occurred.

More and more religion has become a choice, rather than the truth for a great many followers.

Dave!

He's on the Panel in about 5 minutes!!!!!!!!!!

ulc84

I thought Dawkins was brilliant in the face of rudeness and ignorance. Also a good appearance on the panel tonight.

Dades

Typical, I decided to watch Family Guy instead of The Panel...

He really is whoring his christmas book.

Dave!

Yeah he was good tonight. I thought he was going to start being a bit more gentle, when he started on a spiel about how not every religious person is a Creationist, and there are some good religious scientists, but then he compared religion to the "naive, stupid" (I think?) pre-disposition a child is programmed with to believe everything his or her parents tell them. He also suggested Neil Delamere "can believe that, or you can get a life" (with relation to something about religion )

So he's not getting soft, don't worry! That should be on the internet shortly too.

Dave!

The Atheist wrote:

Typical, I decided to watch Family Guy instead of The Panel...

He really is whoring his christmas book.

He bloody is! Whoever's doing his PR or whatever is doing a bloody great job! :eek:

What's that he's on now, the Panel, the Late Late Show, Tubridy's radio show, Newsnight, the Colbert Report.....

can't think of any more, but I'm sure there's a tonne of British radio shows he's been on marketing this

Much impressed.

And lol @ "his christmas book"

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

but you can't get away with just saying "well, that's a silly argument" - you need to show how.

exactly, well said. And that is something that poor old Dawkins is quite bad at doing, explaining to someone why their argument is stupid in a way that the person will actually understand and realise it is stupid. Dawkins doesn't seem to like doing this and find that he has to frustrating. But it is necessary when discussing something like this with people who may not have spent a great deal of time considering their arguments.

Zombrex

mathias wrote:

My whole point is , that Dawkins , in the God Delusion , seems to argue that religion is a human creation or concept outside of evolution ,somthing we could choose to abandon

It is. We have ultimate power over the ideas of how our society is shaped. Which is why we live in a social democracy, rather than a despot monarchy like we had 3000 years ago.

mathias wrote:

, whereas I say its part and parcel of it , we are a species genetically pre disposed to be part of a group , with all its complexities , rituals , etc.

But those rituals don't have to include God. In fact for a lot of people they don't include God.

You speak as if religion is the only thing people believe in. That isn't true. People, including atheists, believe in a lot of different things. For example plenty of atheists believe in national pride and serving (and dying) in their countries armed services. Others strongly believe in Fair Trade agreements, and march for that cause.

You speak about atheism as if it is lack of belief in anything. It is far from that.

Dave!

The interview on the Late Late Show can be found here:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,402,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Late-Late-Show-with-Pat-Kenny,RTE-1-Ireland

114MB or something like that

Zillah

mathias wrote:

My whole point is , that Dawkins , in the God Delusion , seems to argue that religion is a human creation or concept outside of evolution ,somthing we could choose to abandon , whereas I say its part and parcel of it , we are a species genetically pre disposed to be part of a group , with all its complexities , rituals , etc.
If we werent born into one , we would find one to fit into , or make one. Its part of our genetic makeup and is a hugely successful evolutionary strategy.

This is actually something that has erked me about Dawkins. He seems to rely on the meme theory for religious belief far more than any genetic predisposition towards religion.

From my own understanding of evolution it seem inevitable to conclude that humanity has a leaning towards religious belief as a genetic trait (social glue), and yet Dawkins seems to shun this approach entirely.

I haven't read the God Dellusion yet so I don't know if he addresses this.

Dades

DaveMcG wrote:

The interview on the Late Late Show can be found here:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,402,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Late-Late-Show-with-Pat-Kenny,RTE-1-Ireland

Thanks Dave.

Just watched it and I have to say I was impressed with Dawkins despite what I'd heard.

I even thought that Gerry guy was very reasonable. (Up to the point where he disingenuously took up Dawkins "very probable" alien life assertion as the same thing as saying there's a god). Finally I really thought Pat Kenny did a good job of paraphrasing Dawkins a few times when his comments were ignored.

The woman in the audience who claimed a miracle made me wince.

Zombrex

Just watching it in work, no sound but reading some of the comments scrolling on the bottom, and I must say they are the same depressing nonsense about atheism and what it says

For example

I am a man of God and science. Science cannot exist without God and vice versa. It is not possible to live without values and morals which are essentially our faith.

It really makes me cringe when I hear something like that, though it does explain why some people are very hostile towards atheism if they think it is an abandonment of morality, which seems to be a common mis-conception of atheism by theists on this website.

I look forward to watching the full program.

Zirconia

Zillah wrote:

From my own understanding of evolution it seem inevitable to conclude that humanity has a leaning towards religious belief as a genetic trait (social glue), and yet Dawkins seems to shun this approach entirely.

I have a similar belief to this; In the same way that many human talents and abilities have come about as side effects from evolving survival traits; adapting to the enviroment, aquiring food, protecting yourself physically etc, I am of the opinion that the seemingly inherent predisposition for needing to have an omnipotent being, creator and protector is also a side effect.

Humans are not born with the ablilty to survive and care for themselves - they must be protected and cared for. Children are however born with an instinct to remain close to their parents, who created them, and protect them, and who children see as being immortal and who's judgement and character are beyond reproach. I feel that this instinct instills a need which results in belief in god.

5uspect

The Atheist wrote:

The woman in the audience who claimed a miracle made me wince.

The expression on her friends face after she made that comment about the miracle was gas. Absolute ignorance.

I can understand a lot of the unhappiness about Dawkins approach but at least he's getting people talking about atheism. Spreading the meme so to speak.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

From my own understanding of evolution it seem inevitable to conclude that humanity has a leaning towards religious belief as a genetic trait (social glue)

I think religion is a by-product of the way we organise data in our brains, how we construct mental images of the processes of nature. We tend to seek out answers and methods that fit within the terms of human action and re-action. Something happened because someone did something. It is no coincidence that our gods are nearly always (I can't think of any that aren't) imagined as really just very powerful humans who act and behave as humans do, with the same scope of reasoning and emotion.

This of course, like anything, is a result of the way our brains have evolved, so it could be argued that it is a result of evolution.

But of course this doesn't mean we are fixed to this way of thinking. Unlike most animals we are not slaves to our biology or evolution.

Zombrex

5uspect wrote:

I can understand a lot of the unhappiness about Dawkins approach but at least he's getting people talking about atheism.

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing.

I don't always think that Dawkins comes across very well, but TBH I think a lot of this is more to do with the hostility that he meets from theists who seem outraged that the atheist position is even being mentioned in public.

And the fact that the possibility for this outrage exists in the first place is why we need people like Dawkins.

mathias

But of course this doesn't mean we are fixed to this way of thinking. Unlike most animals we are not slaves to our biology or evolution

On the contrary that is Exactly what it means , just because the human race has developed an understanding of the process that got us here does not mean that the process no longer applies to us. That would be a nonsense , and as our genetic make up determines to a large extent our behaviour , especially in group dynamics , the we are most certainly a slave to our biology and evolution .

The only possible way this wouldnt be the case , was if there was a method of removing or modifying genes predisposing us to these traits , and there most definitely is not!

Whether you like it or not , the DNA you have now , you have for life , nothing can change that ,your traits will be passed to your offspring for generations to come.

Zombrex

mathias wrote:

On the contrary that is Exactly what it means , just because the human race has developed an understanding of the process that got us here does not mean that the process no longer applies to us.

I didn't say it no long applies to us, I said we are not slaves to it.

For example, there are complex evolutionary reasons why men like the idea of their girlfriend being a virgin, why they get jealous about the idea of their girlfriend having sex with men before they even met each other, and why society has invented the concept of the "slut", and why this when applied in a negative manner is applied almost exclusively to women in what feminists called the "great double standard"

This is also reflected in the religious rituals that have grown up around marriage and particularly virginity before marriage, and it is interesting that in a lot of societies that follow this it is nearly always more important that the woman be a virgin than the man (who is almost encouraged not to be)

But that doesn't mean that modern men won't sleep or marry women who are not virgins. Our higher intelligence systems, our rational and logic, have, to put it simply, got over it

We have rationalised ourselves out of having to be slaves to that particular evolutionary control system.

Not all of us have, and it is certainly still around. Jealousy over sexual partners still happens certainly. But we (most of us) recognise it for what it is, and recognise it as something that does not have to be blindly followed.

bonkey

mathias wrote:

IWe , that is the human race , are a social species defined in terms of our belief systems , it has always been so

I very much doubt you can prove this.

Perhaps you mean that it has always been so since some point in time where we have established man had belief systems, but we know so little about man from (say) around the time that agriculture was invented that it would be nothing more than speculation to suggest that there were belief systems.

it is only by gathering together in common groups and working together under common belief systems , language , religions , etc. that we have survived in the evolutionary arms race.

Gathering together...yes. Common belief systems, language, religion...all followed our gathering together. Thus, they could never have been the original reason for our gathering nor remaining together.

Arguing that we should abandon what has made us so successful and the dominant species on the planet ( our beliefs ! ) , is ludicrous ,

No more ludicrous than suggestnig our beliefs are what have madre us so successful and the dominant species on the planet it.

Definitely less ludicrous than making such a claim without backing it up with an argument to establish its credibility.

Consider that the oldest religious roots we can identifty goes back to maybe 6,000 BC. Thats just over 1.5% of the timespan that Homo Sapiens has been around ( approx. 500,000 years), so on what grounds do you think our beliefs are what has made us succesful?

That is the definition of our species , we are apes who tell each other the stories we like !!

That may be your definition, but it most certainly is not the definition of oru species.

mathias

Out higher intelligence has, to put it simply, got over it We have rationalised ourselves out of having to be slaves to that particular evolutionary control system.

You are mistaking the end result for the cause , the "predispostion to behave" in a certain way is in your genes , this cannot be " Got Over " , this is passed on regardless and the predisposition to behave passed on with it.
As an individual you cannot choose to Evolve , you DNA is your DNA and wont change in your lifetime , you have no say in the evolutionary process.

You cannot get over your genetic make up. You are mistaking short term single generation social fads with long term genetically controlled behaviour characteristics such as the group dynamic and behaviour characteristics.

We ( the human race ) will group together into communities with belief systems wherever there are people , these belief systems will be many and varied , but there will be groups , and there will be belief systems , and those belief systems will be whats acceptable to the majority of the group , and need not necessarily be based on any " Truth". All it needs to do to ensure our success , is bond the group.