The God Delusion Tonight On More4 At 9pm

zimovain

Just giving a heads up for anyone interested, it is on for two hours from 9 until 11.

The God Delusion
More4
Controversial atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins challenges leading religious figures from around the world over the scientific evidence that suggests a 'supreme being' does not exist. The ubiquitous professor meets with Ted Haggard, the President of the American National Association of Evangelicals, Muslim fundamentalist Yousef Al Khattab and the Grand Mufti of Palestine to contest their respective beliefs. SUB

Zombrex

I normally defend Dawkins but it certainly does seem him and Channel 4 are having a bit of a field day. It seems you can't turn on the telly without him having a new TV programme out. Bit like Derren Brown a few months ago. I suppose it relates to More 4's demographics.

philologos

I'll give it a watch.

By the by, wasn't Ted Haggard ousted from that post a few years ago? Or is this a replay of The Root of all Evil?

Turtwig

"The Root of All Evil?" was the old name for "The God Delusion".:)

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

"The Root of All Evil?" was the old name for "The God Delusion".:)

So it's just a replay?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

So it's just a replay?

Yep, it would appear so.

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll give it a watch.

By the by, wasn't Ted Haggard ousted from that post a few years ago? Or is this a replay of The Root of all Evil?

Apparently he is back. He "over-repented".

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Apparently he is back. He "over-repented".

Certainly not back as the head of the NAE. That role is now filled by Leith Anderson. Today, instead of making proclamations about homosexuality, the NAE is enraging the American right by supporting an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Vinny-Chase

Watched some of this last night. He was practically insulting the people of Lourdes as they are walking past. Calling the Catholics there a "backward herd"!

I'm the very first person who will have a shot at the church and organised religion, hell I even made a film and wrote a play about it. But I think it's important to have faith. I thought he was well out of order to go to places just to belittle people's beliefs.

seamus

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

But I think it's important to have faith.

But that's the difference isn't it? You might criticise organised institutions, but you still have a religious belief. For people who see no point to "faith", religious beliefs are no less absurd than the reptilian conspiracy theory - why shouldn't they be subject to ridicule, given the influence they exert on the world?

Vinny-Chase

If he went to a meeting of Alien Reptilian believers and stood there "ridiculing" their beliefs I would think he was equally out of order. Why should any one be subject to "ridicule" because of their beliefs? It is their belief.

"For those who believe, no evidence is required. For those who do not, no evidence is enough"

kelly1

I watched it last night. Mr Dawkins is a despicable arrogant bigot. God have mercy on him!

po0k

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

If he went to a meeting of Alien Reptilian believers and stood there "ridiculing" their beliefs I would think he was equally out of order. Why should any one be subject to "ridicule" because of their beliefs? It is their belief.

fncked

Vinny-Chase

po0k wrote: »

fncked

I don't get your point. Why are you directing that at my post?

Auvers

kelly1 wrote: »

Mr Dawkins is a despicable arrogant bigot.

how so?

CokaColumbo

He immediately started the documentary by pitching science against religion, claiming that one is completely incompatible with the other. This is clearly not the case. The fact that many venerable scientists are Christians shows that claim for what it really is.

After ridiculing religious people, he says that science is great because 'unlike religion', scientists develop theories and then try to disprove them. But Dawkins seems to forget this principal when it comes to his documentary because he devotes the vast majority of his time interviewing nut-jobs, i.e. false shepherds and soft targets, to substantiate his rhetoric against all organised religion. From what I remember of the program, he doesn't include any meaningful discussion with a Catholic theologian in the main body of the documentary. He does not try to disprove his position; instead, he tries to bolster the atheist belief system by dismissing religion as the reserve of fools and dangerous lunatics, without ever testing his own beliefs and portraying religion in an objective, inoffensive manner.

If Dawkin's really believes that religion is an impediment to science, the most important subject in the world to him, I wonder if he could, would he remove people's right to practice religion.
I wouldn't be surprised if he would as he clearly believes that all religion hinders the advancement of humanity and "progressive" teachings.

seamus

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Why should any one be subject to "ridicule" because of their beliefs? It is their belief.

Ridiculing a belief and ridiculing an individual for their beliefs are two entirely separate things. Ridiculous claims made in public should not be protected from criticism. Ridiculous claims held in private cannot be subject to criticism (because they're private and no-one else knows about them).

It's the difference between debating a topic (such as abortion) and making an attack on someone who supports abortion. The first is OK, the second is not. If you have a belief, you should be capable of defending it, if you choose to. But you won't have to defend it unless you choose to.

"For those who believe, no evidence is required. For those who do not, no evidence is not enough"

Fixed your post.

philologos

Is there anything on next week?

Vinny-Chase

seamus wrote: »

Ridiculing a belief and ridiculing an individual for their beliefs are two entirely separate things. Ridiculous claims made in public should not be protected from criticism. Ridiculous claims held in private cannot be subject to criticism (because they're private and no-one else knows about them).

It's the difference between debating a topic (such as abortion) and making an attack on someone who supports abortion. The first is OK, the second is not. If you have a belief, you should be capable of defending it, if you choose to. But you won't have to defend it unless you choose to.
Fixed your post.

You don't need to fix my post, thank you very much.

I was raised Catholic and believe in both science and the right to abortion. I accept people's belief who are against abortion. Whether I agree with it or not. I don't agree with people who demonstrate outside abortion clinics because it is the same as what Dawkins did - went to a place where these people were gathered in their beliefs to attack/ ridicule them. I'm not going to go to a gathering of pro-lifers to demonstrate against their beliefs just because I don't agree with them.

What does it matter if people have faith? People go to Lourdes, personally I wouldn't, but the fact that people do, as they are entitled to, does not make them part of a "backward herd".

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Certainly not back as the head of the NAE. That role is now filled by Leith Anderson. Today, instead of making proclamations about homosexuality, the NAE is enraging the American right by supporting an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

It's a sweeping statement, but well done them!

zimovain

Jakkass wrote: »

Is there anything on next week?

Yep,

Following the programme’s tx on 18 August, More 4 will present new two-hour edits of his earlier series The Root of All Evil? – now renamed The God Delusion in line with his best-selling book – and Enemies of Reason, plus a three-hour special of The Genius of Charles Darwin. Dawkins is recording new introductions for each film.
More 4 will also repeat recent science series The Genius of Britain, which featured contributions from Dawkins alongside the likes of David Attenborough and Robert Winston.

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/commissioning/faith-school-doc-to-launch-more-4-dawkins-season/5016672.article

caseyann

I was going to make a thread about that show,happy someone else did i made one over on the Islam forum to ask questions about the comments the Muslims made.


So in a different light i am going to ask same question of yous on a another thread.

I was quite sickened by his way of insulting the religions.

KittyeeTrix

Jakkass wrote: »

Is there anything on next week?

He has another show on next week called "Enemies of Reason". It is on wednesday at 9pm on More4 and it looks at areas such as astrology, clairvoyants and alternative health remedies etc.

Ush1

CokaColumbo wrote: »

He immediately started the documentary by pitching science against religion, claiming that one is completely incompatible with the other. This is clearly not the case. The fact that many venerable scientists are Christians shows that claim for what it really is.

After ridiculing religious people, he says that science is great because 'unlike religion', scientists develop theories and then try to disprove them. But Dawkins seems to forget this principal when it comes to his documentary because he devotes the vast majority of his time interviewing nut-jobs, i.e. false shepherds and soft targets, to substantiate his rhetoric against all organised religion. From what I remember of the program, he doesn't include any meaningful discussion with a Catholic theologian in the main body of the documentary. He does not try to disprove his position; instead, he tries to bolster the atheist belief system by dismissing religion as the reserve of fools and dangerous lunatics, without ever testing his own beliefs and portraying religion in an objective, inoffensive manner.

If Dawkin's really believes that religion is an impediment to science, the most important subject in the world to him, I wonder if he could, would he remove people's right to practice religion.
I wouldn't be surprised if he would as he clearly believes that all religion hinders the advancement of humanity and "progressive" teachings.

Atheism isn't a belief system, it's a lack of belief in theism.

The programme was entitled "The God Delusion", what were you expecting? Indeed he doesn't "disprove" his position or contend to add lack of probability to it because I assume they are self evident. His is a position of science and evidence.

What you might call nut jobs are very much the accepted norm in many parts of the world.

He has interviewed many theologians in the past but this is a channel 4 programme, it's probably not going to go too in depth.

MagicMarker

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

I'm the very first person who will have a shot at the church and organised religion, hell I even made a film and wrote a play about it. But I think it's important to have faith. I thought he was well out of order to go to places just to belittle people's beliefs.

Wha??

You're the first to have a shot at organised religion, presumably because you don't believe in it yourself? But you think it's important to have faith in something you don't believe to be true?

I'm sorry, I don't get that line of thinking at all.

Vinny-Chase

I don't believe in the middle man. I go direct to the source.

eblistic

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

I don't believe in the middle man. I go direct to the source.

Really? Direct how exactly? Does it communicate with you?

(Assuming you'd include bible authors as middle men?).

Vinny-Chase

I would include Bible authors as middle men. You factor humans into any equation and it's open to that one person's outlook.

My beliefs are irrelevant to this thread and OT.

philologos

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

I would include Bible authors as middle men. You factor humans into any equation and it's open to that one person's outlook.

What is the source then if it isn't what God has revealed to mankind?

Vinny-Chase

I think perhaps God was the inspiration, but he wasn't the (holy) ghost writer.

philologos

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

I think perhaps God was the inspiration, but he wasn't the (holy) ghost writer.

If one couldn't be sure if God inspired any of it, or indeed which parts He inspired and which parts He didn't, there would be very little point in putting any trust in it at all surely?

Indeed, if the Biblical authors couldn't know about God, what hope do any of us have?

Vinny-Chase

If I write a book, stories about Jakkass and it survives for a couple of thousand years, who's to say I really knew Jakkass at all, after all that time? Who's to say I'm the real authority just because I'm the one who wrote the book?

If Dan Brown was inspired by God to write The Da Vinci Code, then who's to say that's not the real story?

Bduffman

CokaColumbo wrote: »

He immediately started the documentary by pitching science against religion, claiming that one is completely incompatible with the other. This is clearly not the case. The fact that many venerable scientists are Christians shows that claim for what it really is..

That doesn't prove anything except that scientists are human and are as vulnerable as the next person.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

After ridiculing religious people, he says that science is great because 'unlike religion', scientists develop theories and then try to disprove them. But Dawkins seems to forget this principal when it comes to his documentary ..

No he didn't. Scientists try to develop theories based on evidence, & then use further evidence gained from experiments to either prove or disprove. Religions simply develop theories but seem to have no interest in proving them.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

because he devotes the vast majority of his time interviewing nut-jobs, i.e. false shepherds and soft targets, to substantiate his rhetoric against all organised religion. From what I remember of the program, he doesn't include any meaningful discussion with a Catholic theologian in the main body of the documentary. He does not try to disprove his position; instead, he tries to bolster the atheist belief system by dismissing religion as the reserve of fools and dangerous lunatics, without ever testing his own beliefs and portraying religion in an objective, inoffensive manner.

You completely missed one of his main points - that religion will always lead to extremist views - no matter how moderate the majority of believers are. Interviewing extremists just proved his point. Have you ever heard non-religious scientists with such extreme views? And even if you have - they probably aren't out blowing up planes or shooting priests.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

If Dawkin's really believes that religion is an impediment to science, the most important subject in the world to him, I wonder if he could, would he remove people's right to practice religion.
I wouldn't be surprised if he would as he clearly believes that all religion hinders the advancement of humanity and "progressive" teachings.

I would doubt he would even suggest such a thing. His main hope is that if we encourage critical thinking that religion would go away by itself.

Fanny Cradock

Actually, science doesn't deal in proofs. As for a scientific person with extreme views, try reading some Sam Harris. He would rather abolish religion than rape.

Bduffman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Actually, science doesn't deal in proofs.

No, just evidence which hopefully leads to proof. (But in the case of god - you can't prove something doesn't exist - remember?)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As for a scientific person with extreme views, try reading some Sam Harris. He would rather abolish religion than rape.

Any quotes backing this up?

(And the last time I looked, I though rape was already abolished )

Fanny Cradock

Bduffman wrote: »

No, just evidence which hopefully leads to proof. (But in the case of god - you can't prove something doesn't exist - remember?)

I'll say it again, science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence that leads to predictive models. All scientific theories, however well supported by evidence, are contingent on data that can in principle be overturned at any time. If you are looking for proof you need to go to mathematics or logic.

Bduffman wrote: »

Any quotes backing this up?

(And the last time I looked, I though rape was already abolished )

http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?bt=2255

Of course, you need to go no further than Dawkins if you are looking for extreme views. He has come out with a few clangers in his time.

Ush1

Bduffman wrote: »

(And the last time I looked, I though rape was already abolished )

LMFAO

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'll say it again, science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence that leads to predictive models. All scientific theories, however well supported by evidence, are contingent on data that can in principle be overturned at any time. If you are looking for proof you need to go to mathematics or logic.

I'm sorry fanny but you could be wrong about this. Whether proofs in Maths and Logic are actual proofs is still an open question.:)

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm sorry fanny but you could be wrong about this.

I could indeed be wrong, Malty.

Bduffman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'll say it again, science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence that leads to predictive models. All scientific theories, however well supported by evidence, are contingent on data that can in principle be overturned at any time. If you are looking for proof you need to go to mathematics or logic.

So we're in agreement then. But just as long as you accept that religion places no such limits on itself.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?bt=2255

I don't see how you can say this is extreme - provocative maybe - but hardly extreme. He believes that religion has been more harmful to society than rape. Nowhere does he state that rape is not harmful - only that in his opinion religion has been more harmful. You may disagree but its hardly extreme. Now if he decided that all believers should be wiped off the face of the earth - then yes that would be extreme. But you probably won't hear atheists saying that.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Of course, you need to go no further than Dawkins if you are looking for extreme views. He has come out with a few clangers in his time.

I'm sure you've been busy collecting quotes so heres you chance to show them.

Bduffman

Ush1 wrote: »

LMFAO

Could you please translate - I'm not a teenager any more so I don't speak their language.

EDIT: I've just looked it up. Whats so funny? Just because something is abolished doesn't mean it still doesn't happen. Slavery was abolished years ago but it still happens.
So - you want to explain the cause of your merriment?

Ush1

Bduffman wrote: »

Could you please translate - I'm not a teenager any more so I don't speak their language.

EDIT: I've just looked it up. Whats so funny? Just because something is abolished doesn't mean it still doesn't happen. Slavery was abolished years ago but it still happens.
So - you want to explain the cause of your merriment?

I'm not a teenager either.

Are you serious? Are you telling me I can't go out and rape anymore? I should have known about this sooner. Ah well gee whizz....

Bduffman

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not a teenager either.

Are you serious? Are you telling me I can't go out and rape anymore? I should have known about this sooner. Ah well gee whizz....

Yes I believe it is abolished - at least in this country anyway. But - guess what? People break the law. Shock horror.

However, religion is not abolished here. See the difference?

Zombrex

Harris was discussing the damage of religion in an interview and said if he could wave a magic wand and get rid of religion or rape he would have no hesitation about getting rid of religion before rape.

How "extreme" you think that position is I guess depends on how much you agree with Harris' view as to the damage religion has caused in the world.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Harris was discussing the damage of religion in an interview and said if he could wave a magic wand and get rid of religion or rape he would have no hesitation about getting rid of religion before rape.

How "extreme" you think that position is I guess depends on how much you agree with Harris' view as to the damage religion has caused in the world.

It depends equally on how much damage you think rape has caused in the world.

Fanny Cradock

Bduffman wrote: »

So we're in agreement then. But just as long as you accept that religion places no such limits on itself.

Are we? BTW, I fail to see why agreement is contingent upon an me accepting an unrelated statement. The epistemological limits that religion or history or whatever has nothing to do with the limits of science.

Bduffman wrote: »

I don't see how you can say this is extreme - provocative maybe - but hardly extreme. He believes that religion has been more harmful to society than rape. Nowhere does he state that rape is not harmful - only that in his opinion religion has been more harmful. You may disagree but its hardly extreme. Now if he decided that all believers should be wiped off the face of the earth - then yes that would be extreme. But you probably won't hear atheists saying that.

I do say it's extreme. I also say it is crass and insensitive. But then again I don't clumsily lump all religion together like its all one and the same. I also have the willingness to admit that there both good and bad deeds are produced by religion. I'm not willing to say rape is ever good. And here I'm deliberately not including the views of a rapist.

If Harris really believed his own statement then he would be holding onto the ankles of every man, woman and child about to enter the nearest church, synagogue, Religious Society of Friends meeting house, mosque, Buddhist and Hindu temple for fear they were going to suffer a fate worse than rape.

Fanny Cradock

Bduffman wrote: »

Yes I believe it is abolished - at least in this country anyway. But - guess what? People break the law. Shock horror.

However, religion is not abolished here. See the difference?

The word abolish has a specific meaning. Rape has not been done away with. It has not been destroyed. I was not talking about a legal ruling on rape. You are deliberately playing word games.

Bduffman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I do say it's extreme. I also say it is crass and insensitive. But then again I don't clumsily lump all religion together like its all one and the same. I also have the willingness to admit that there both good and bad deeds are produced by religion. I'm not willing to say rape is ever good. And here I'm deliberately not including the views of a rapist.

Ok - you think thats extreme. So what do you call flying planes into buildings & shooting abortion doctors? Extremely extreme? Super extreme? Its on such a higher scale of extreme that you can't use the same adjective for both.
So how many 'extreme' atheists have equivalently extreme views as extreme believers and carry out similarly extreme actions? Can you even name any?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If Harris really believed his own statement then he would be holding onto the ankles of every man, woman and child about to enter the nearest church, synagogue, Religious Society of Friends meeting house, mosque, Buddhist and Hindu temple for fear they were going to suffer a fate worse than rape.

I think you've just answered your own question there. Because if he dose believe his own statement, theres very little he can do about it.

Bduffman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The word abolish has a specific meaning. Rape has not been done away with. It has not been destroyed. I was not talking about a legal ruling on rape. You are deliberately playing word games.

I think everyone would accept that slavery has been 'abolished'. Its still here though.

Turtwig

Bduffman wrote: »

So how many 'extreme' atheists have equivalently extreme views as extreme believers and carry out similarly extreme actions? Can you even name any?
.

Stalin. Mao, Pol Pot.

Fanny Cradock

Bduffman wrote: »

Ok - you think thats extreme. So what do you call flying planes into buildings & shooting abortion doctors? Extremely extreme? Super extreme? Its on such a higher scale of extreme that you can't use the same adjective for both.

You should probably reread my post and think about what I said before replying. Has religion been used as a vehicle to do very bad things? Yes. Then again so has politics. Is religion completely evil? No. You will have to convince me that rape is good before we can proceed further. Harris would have us believe that religion is all saying the same thing. It's not.

Bduffman wrote: »

So how many 'extreme' atheists have equivalently extreme views as extreme believers and carry out similarly extreme actions? Can you even name any?

I'm sure we could attempt to draw up a score sheet. But what has that got to do with anything?

Bduffman wrote: »

I think you've just answered your own question there. Because if he dose believe his own statement, theres very little he can do about it.

Did you read what I said? I questioned if he really believed what he is saying. Beside my rather obvious point, if you are of the opinion that there is very little he can do about it because he believes what he believes, I don't know why you bother to engage with people who hold different opinions to yourself.