Live Debate: Has Science Refuted Religion?

brimal

Hey guys,

I would consider myself atheist (possibly agnostic), but the topic itself doesn't really interest me.

I'm a huge fan of science and a physicist who I admire and have a lot of time for is Sean Carroll. He is an excellent speaker and knows his stuff (on science anyway)

Well on the side, he likes to talk about atheism and take part in debates from time to time. He has on occasion thought atheism courses in universities and seems to do his bit for debating atheism to the wider audience.

On his blog today he mentioned his is taking part in a live debate on Youtube which I thought you guys might be interested in.

Science/Religion Debate Live-Streaming Today

by Sean Carroll

I’m participating this afternoon in an intriguing event here at Caltech:

The Great Debate: “Has Science Refuted Religion?”

Affirming the proposition will be Skeptics Society president Michael Shermer and myself, while negating it will be conservative author Dinesh D’Souza and MIT nuclear engineer Ian Hutchinson. We’ll go back and forth for about two hours, after which Sam Harris will give a talk about his most recent book, Free Will.

I don't know much about the other guys involved (except Sam Harris), but just thought I'd share.

It starts in 2.5 hours.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/user/MichaelShermer/featured?v=GH2RbXaEDQE

(Was going to just add this to the 'Interesting Stuff' thread but given the short time frame before it starts, I thought it would be viewed more as a new thread - pls move if necessary)

HUNK

Bump, starting in like 60 seconds.

MagicMarker

Ugh, I'm not mad on Dinesh D’Souza.

Didn't realise Harris had a new book..

MagicMarker

Video not working, some of the comments are great...

Someone needs to apply some science behind this error issue.
archetype0 26 seconds ago

I remain skeptical about this stream.
dongilmore 25 seconds ago

Turtwig

Stream is cat.

HUNK

http://www.livestream.com/skepticssociety

This works (well for me anyway).

Turtwig

Hit refresh on the wrong tab and now I find the channel has maxed out.

HUNK

http://www.livestream.com/biggoron

Try this if the other two don't work.

Mark Hamill

brimal wrote: »

He has on occasion thought atheism courses in universities

Must be the easiest exam in college. One question, yes/no answer - Do you believe in god? :pac:

brimal

Sorry guys, what a letdown.

The tech person for the streams says they are fixing the Youtube channel now and are increasing the max viewers on the Livestream site.

Even with this, the stream looks like it's being recorded using a calculator, the quality is rubbish.

sbsquarepants

brimal wrote: »

He has on occasion thought atheism courses in universities and seems to do his bit for debating atheism to the wider audience.


Link: http://www.youtube.com/user/MichaelShermer/featured?v=GH2RbXaEDQE

(Was going to just add this to the 'Interesting Stuff' thread but given the short time frame before it starts, I thought it would be viewed more as a new thread - pls move if necessary)

What the hell is an atheist course?
How can you teach a course about the lack of belief in something?

There seems to be a growing trend towards grouping and moulding atheists together into some kind of quasi non religion, that just makes no sense whatsoever.
People in general grow out of believing in santy clause, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and so on - some just go a step further and grow out of "believing" in god. Hardly requires a college course to explain.

Mark Hamill

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What the hell is an atheist course?
How can you teach a course about the lack of belief in something?

There seems to be a growing trend towards grouping and moulding atheists together into some kind of quasi non religion, that just makes no sense whatsoever.
People in general grow out of believing in santy clause, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and so on - some just go a step further and grow out of "believing" in god. Hardly requires a college course to explain.

It depends. If he does a course on atheist thinkers and arguments (and just explains them and gets people to think about them and discuss them), thats ok and would be quite interesting.
If he does a course on why you should be atheist, then that would be pointless. Just do a course on general skepticism, rationality and logic and it would be covered in a roundabout way anyway.

brimal

brimal wrote: »

He has on occasion thought atheism courses in universities

is that different to action atheism courses

brimal

I should have been more specific in my OP. He has thought History of Atheism courses in University of Chicago.

Here's a link to the syllabus: http://preposterousuniverse.com/teaching/moments04/moments-syll.pdf

I'm not sure how this compares to other atheism lectures.

Helix

first line of the course description "Atheism is as old as religion."

erm

no it's not... it's older. it can't possibly be the same age unless the very first human baby arrived believing in a higher power

sink

Helix wrote: »

first line of the course description "Atheism is as old as religion."

erm

no it's not... it's older. it can't possibly be the same age unless the very first human baby arrived believing in a higher power

Well I assume he means in etymological terms.

sink

sink wrote: »

Well I assume he means in etymological terms.

atheism didn't always mean what we mean by it, according to wiki

Jimoslimos

No, science can't refute religion. Science cannot prove/disprove the supernatural.

What it can do is refute claims made by religion to explain natural phenonema.

deman

brimal wrote: »

I should have been more specific in my OP. He has thought History of Atheism courses in University of Chicago.

Here's a link to the syllabus: http://preposterousuniverse.com/teaching/moments04/moments-syll.pdf

I'm not sure how this compares to other atheism lectures.

Surely you mean "taught" as in teach, and not "thought" as in think.

Jimoslimos

deman wrote: »

Surely you mean "taught" as in teach, and not "thought" as in think.

No, he meant taut - as opposed to loose atheism classes!

Dades

Helix wrote: »

first line of the course description "Atheism is as old as religion."

erm

no it's not... it's older. it can't possibly be the same age unless the very first human baby arrived believing in a higher power

Hmmm. I've always disagreed with this.

I think to be an "atheist" you at least need to know that some people purport that gods exist. Otherwise you are just a *person*.

To do otherwise is like labelling infants vegans or pioneers.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Hmmm. I've always disagreed with this.

I think to be an "atheist" you at least need to know that some people purport that gods exist. Otherwise you are just a *person*.

To do otherwise is like labelling infants vegans or pioneers.

[pedant]But don't infants drink breast milk? And aren't pioneers making a specific decision? Whereas to be an atheist you lack a belief in God and don't technically need to have made a conscious decision about it.

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

[pedant]But don't infants drink breast milk?

FINE. Vegetarians, then.

Galvasean wrote: »

[pedant]But don't infants drink breast milk? And aren't pioneers making a specific decision? Whereas to be an atheist you lack a belief in God and don't technically need to have made a conscious decision about it.

Well, that's the bit I'm disputing.

robindch

Well, I don't think there's been a thread on the nature of atheism for a good month or six weeks

Time to dust off an old one and solve this riddle for once and for all?

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

Hmmm. I've always disagreed with this.

I think to be an "atheist" you at least need to know that some people purport that gods exist. Otherwise you are just a *person*.

Meh. I think you and I are explicit atheists, my cat is an implicit atheist.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

Hmmm. I've always disagreed with this.

I think to be an "atheist" you at least need to know that some people purport that gods exist. Otherwise you are just a *person*.

To do otherwise is like labelling infants vegans or pioneers.

Got to be persnickety here. It's teetotaler not pioneer. The latter has religious connotations associated with it whereas the former doesn't.

Dades

Jernal wrote: »

Got to be persnickety here. It's teetotaler not pioneer. The latter has religious connotations associated with it whereas the former doesn't.

FINE. We don't call infants "teetotalers" then. :pac:

Morbert

Galvasean wrote: »

[pedant]But don't infants drink breast milk? And aren't pioneers making a specific decision? Whereas to be an atheist you lack a belief in God and don't technically need to have made a conscious decision about it.

An athe-ist is someone who subscribes to athe-ism, a philosophical position.

By your definition, a rock is an atheist, and rocks can't subscribe to philosophical ideas.

Sarky

Maybe they can, but they've also taken a vow of silence, so we'd never know about it.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

FINE. We don't call infants "teetotalers" then. :pac:

HUNK

Right, here are the uploaded versions of the live debate, as well as Sam Harris' talk on 'Free Will'. Taken from Michael Shermer's channel. (Note how the camera angles are not as sh*t and blurry as the live cam was :mad:)

sponsoredwalk

Dades wrote: »

To do otherwise is like labelling infants vegans or pioneers.

/Thinks carnism thread has had an effect.../

Helix wrote: »

first line of the course description "Atheism is as old as religion."

erm

no it's not... it's older. it can't possibly be the same age unless the very first human baby arrived believing in a higher power

In all fairness the meaning of the sentence is pretty obvious, we can interpret grammar in the way that makes a lecturer/theoretical physicist look so stupid that he can tell you mathematically when the universe began yet can't tell you that atheism doesn't begin with religion, or we can use our common sense & maybe not instantly assume the absolute worst, no matter how ridiculous it may at first appear...

Morbert wrote: »

An athe-ist is someone who subscribes to athe-ism, a philosophical position.

By your definition, a rock is an atheist, and rocks can't subscribe to philosophical ideas.

Only if you assume rocks have beliefs, make decisions, are "someone" etc... The very word is person specific, to go out of your way to emphasize this word applies to people is a bit too tautologous in all fairness...

my rocks do have beliefs, you discriminating person! :mad:

Morbert

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Only if you assume rocks have beliefs, make decisions, are "someone" etc... The very word is person specific, to go out of your way to emphasize this word applies to people is a bit too tautologous in all fairness...

"-ism: A distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement."

"-ist: Added to words to form nouns denoting:
One who follows a principle or system of belief.
A member of a profession or one interested in something.
A person who uses something.
A person who holds biased views."

A rock is clearly not an atheist. It is a simple issue.

sponsoredwalk

Morbert wrote: »

"-ism: A distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement."

"-ist: Added to words to form nouns denoting:
One who follows a principle or system of belief.
A member of a profession or one interested in something.
A person who uses something.
A person who holds biased views."

A rock is clearly not an atheist. It is a simple issue.

Notice how every one of your definitions refers to people, not rocks...

Sarky

Christ, you're so rockist.

jank

robindch wrote: »

Well, I don't think there's been a thread on the nature of atheism for a good month or six weeks

Time to dust off an old one and solve this riddle for once and for all?

Good point, the very fact the a bunch of educated, modern thinking people cant 100% agree what atheism is, should also give an insight into human nature and the assoicated externalities e.g. where we come from, what is god etc.etc..

Science and logic is good and all, we should follow it as far as we can BUT they will not provide an answer for everything. In fact it is folly to think otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.
Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages. And in fact both were right and both wrong; though the view of the ancients is clearer insofar as they have an acknowledged terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything were explained

Sarky

That's a pretty outdated view of science.

Morbert

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Notice how every one of your definitions refers to people, not rocks...

Ah yes, my bad. Here is the updated list

"-ist: Added to words to form nouns denoting:
A person or rock who follows a principle or system of belief.
A member or rock of a profession or one interested in something.
A person or rock who uses something.
A person or rock who holds biased views."

robindch

jank wrote: »

Good point, the very fact the a bunch of educated, modern thinking people cant 100% agree what atheism is,

If you page back through previous discussions, you'll see that people agree pretty much exactly on what atheism is "a lack of belief in one or more deities".

What people disagree upon is how this term can be applied reasonably to people.

jank wrote: »

Science and logic is good and all, we should follow it as far as we can BUT they will not provide an answer for everything. In fact it is folly to think otherwise.

I don't remember anybody here saying that science or logic can "provide an answer to everything". Though having said that, I'd certainly be interested to hear where you reckon that acquiring views that are not supported by reality or being illogical makes a positive contribution to the human condition.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

Meh. I think you and I are explicit atheists, my cat is an implicit atheist.

By Joe, I think he's nailed it!

sponsoredwalk

Morbert wrote: »

Ah yes, my bad. Here is the updated list

"-ist: Added to words to form nouns denoting:
A person or rock who follows a principle or system of belief.
A member or rock of a profession or one interested in something.
A person or rock who uses something.
A person or rock who holds biased views."

Apologies, should have been a bit clearer & less snappy (that's what alcohol & 30 sleepless hours spent mostly studying do to the brain :(), the only point I was trying to make was that it's a bit ridiculous to give out to someone for using general language saying their words can be interpreted very broadly when the words they're using are, by definition, restricted in the first place though I probably shouldn't have bothered (although seeing more than one attempt at contradicting someone in this thread over laughable issues coupled with a lulled sense of reality had destined it be... Can't we all just, like, get along...?)...

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Good point, the very fact the a bunch of educated, modern thinking people cant 100% agree what atheism is, should also give an insight into human nature and the assoicated externalities e.g. where we come from, what is god etc.etc..

Organising Atheists is a bit like herding cats. Sheep are far easier, less intelligent.

jank wrote: »

Science and logic is good and all, we should follow it as far as we can BUT they will not provide an answer for everything. In fact it is folly to think otherwise.

Science and logic are TRUE! I don't think science can be called good. It's great, but it's not always good, eg: Atomic bomb.

Religion already has an answer to everything. It's a small word with 3 letters, starts with a g and ends with d. It's a fantastic word that solves every equation or question. You don't even have to think. :rolleyes:

jank

Sarky wrote: »

That's a pretty outdated view of science.

Care to extrapolate? Is Wittgenstien proven wrong?

jank

robindch wrote: »

If you page back through previous discussions, you'll see that people agree pretty much exactly on what atheism is "a lack of belief in one or more deities".



What people disagree upon is how this term can be applied reasonably to people.

Ah so people are a tad more complicated than first thought! Well that is a new theory....NOT!

robindch wrote: »

I don't remember anybody here saying that science or logic can "provide an answer to everything". Though having said that, I'd certainly be interested to hear where you reckon that acquiring views that are not supported by reality or being illogical makes a positive contribution to the human condition.

But what I have seen here is that those that believe in a deity are stupid, unintelligent, weak, insecure. Isn't that the whole purpose of this forum, to pour scorn and indignation on any believer? Logic and science is the foundation of atheism i would have thought, yet most don't have a clue what they are on about.

Sarky

There is a big difference between pouring scorn upon stupid ideas that people happen to hold, and pouring scorn on people.

Surely you are able to distinguish between the two? Or is religion somehow supposed to be exempt from attack in any form?

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

Organising Atheists is a bit like herding cats. Sheep are far easier, less intelligent.

Do you have actual proof that atheists are actually more intelligent than those of a religious persuasion or are you talking out of your biased ass.

joseph brand wrote: »

Science and logic are TRUE!

You know what the difference between you and some lemming that goes to the church every day is, at least that lemming that goes to the church admits he doesn't know the ins and out of the universe.That doesn't mean that you are both lemmings!

Science and logic is true. Yet where is the proof of that. Mathematicians like Russel and Godel lost their minds finding the "truth" in logic and maths. Yet even them and their great minds could not find it. Do you really think that the human mind can understand the complexities and nature of the universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

joseph brand wrote: »

Religion already has an answer to everything. It's a small word with 3 letters, starts with a g and ends with d. It's a fantastic word that solves every equation or question. You don't even have to think. :rolleyes:

Actually it is quite the opposite, it require people to think allot more.

jank

Sarky wrote: »

There is a big difference between pouring scorn upon stupid ideas that people happen to hold, and pouring scorn on people.

Surely you are able to distinguish between the two? Or is religion somehow supposed to be exempt from attack in any form?

You are of course right but this forum and mods would do well to heed the same advice.

Why does one need to attack? Why not discuss or engage? That perfectly illustrates the defensiveness and insecurities of modern Irish atheism.

Sarky

This forum seems to operate under that advice pretty well. It's not the forum's fault a large number of people are so invested in a stupid idea that they see attacks on it as an attack on them.

Do you really think that the human mind can understand the complexities and nature of the universe?

Let's see... We're making brilliant progress on understanding the nature of carbon-based life, how it works, and how to modify it for our own ends (Hell, we're a step or two away from creating our own life. Turns out it's not something only God can do!), we have some really good models for the multidimensional nature of space-time, we've cured diseases once considered a punishment from God, we've seen the other worlds in this solar system that God spent an unusual amount of time making if our planet was supposed to be the important one, we've developed machines sophisticated enough to guide men to the surface of the moon, and then a few years later made it small enough to put in a mobile phone... We seem to be doing a pretty good job so far, don't you think?

Funny thing; it seems that our ability to understand the complexities and nature of the universe really sped up after we looked past religious dogma and followed the evidence instead.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Do you have actual proof that atheists are actually more intelligent than those of a religious persuasion or are you talking out of your biased ass.

I just said that sheep were easier to herd, than cats. You disagree? Give it a go.

jank wrote: »

You know what the difference between you and some lemming that goes to the church every day is, at least that lemming that goes to the church admits he doesn't know the ins and out of the universe.That doesn't mean that you are both lemmings!

Are you trying to say that I think I know everything about the universe? I just don't have an ignorant biased view of discoveries, ie: "do they conflict with what some dudes wrote 2K yrs ago". Science is open, you're welcome to try and disprove any 'theories'. Try do that with a religions teachings.

Creationists are truly stupid. Dinosaurs with saddles, I mean, come on.

jank wrote: »

Science and logic is true. Yet where is the proof of that. Mathematicians like Russel and Godel lost their minds finding the "truth" in logic and maths. Yet even them and their great minds could not find it. Do you really think that the human mind can understand the complexities and nature of the universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

The human mind got us into space, not bad eh? Science did it, not prayers. If we understood everything, that could be a little boring, especially from the point of view of a scientist. We would also be gods.

jank wrote: »

Actually it is quite the opposite, it require people to think allot more.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8030672/US-atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-believers-quiz-finds.html

Atheists know more about religion than the religious. Speaks volumes.

As Penn Gillette put it, "Go read the Bible, you will become Atheist, that's what happened to me".

robindch

jank wrote: »

Ah so people are a tad more complicated than first thought! Well that is a new theory....NOT!

No, it means that the issue is a tad more complicated than you think.

Now that's surprising.....NOT!(*)

jank wrote: »

But what I have seen here is that those that believe in a deity are stupid, unintelligent, weak, insecure. Isn't that the whole purpose of this forum, to pour scorn and indignation on any believer?

No. Though you can understand why people might find it peculiar when somebody does arrive along and tries to tell us what our beliefs are, without actually understanding them him/herself first.

jank wrote: »

Logic and science is the foundation of atheism i would have thought, yet most don't have a clue what they are on about.

I think if you paid any attention to what people were saying, you might find them more reasonable than you seem to think.

(*) Apologizes for the use of American Sarcasm.

.