Beyond Belief Science talking about religion

[Cyrus]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=275693092937060684&q=Beyond+Belief+2006&total=207&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2


Great lecture talk on science and the belief in religion. There are lots more on the right window. I have lots more videos on these topics I've been watching over winter break. (At least 30 hours of video, so I can keep you glued to your monitor if you like this stuff).

 

[Cyrus]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2981686806126187170

Another damn interesting, but not religious video.

 

[lisab]

Thanks, Cyrus. I watched about 15 minutes of it -- all I could fit in on my lunch break -- and will watch the rest tonight. I love this subject.

 

[Moridin]

I very much liked those videos, especially the ones with V.S. Ramachandran, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Michael Shermer and a few more.

John Allen Paulos, for instance, has come out with a new book (Irreligion), which he talks about. The first chapter can be read here.

Thanks, Cyrus. I watched about 15 minutes of it -- all I could fit in on my lunch break -- and will watch the rest tonight. I love this subject.

That would be physically impossible - it is like 40+ hours

 

[Werg22]

Great, many of the points brought up are thoughts I've had but could never word as well.

 

[Cyrus]

Hey Moridin, I have been watching a ton of Sam Harris on you tube. He has wonderful talks and debates. Also Hitchens and Dawkins. Every day I watch about 5-6 hours of talks and write down notes.

One thing is for sure, these guys are smart, and will tear apart any opposition. There is a great video of Harris vs a rabbi. The rabbi stood no chance.

Also, I had a thread before on religion that got locked and people keep wrongly saying that religion and science are two separate things. However, watch this videos. They are NOT separate, to say so is a fallacious argument, and in fact science does give insight into the whole God question. But I won't get into that, I just wanted to point it out. If you want more insight into this, watch videos or ask me for links to those videos and I will provide them.

 

[Moridin]

Hey Moridin, I have been watching a ton of Sam Harris on you tube. He has wonderful talks and debates. Also Hitchens and Dawkins. Every day I watch about 5-6 hours of talks and write down notes.

One thing is for sure, these guys are smart, and will tear apart any opposition. There is a great video of Harris vs a rabbi. The rabbi stood no chance.

I though that Harris v. Wolpe was one of Harris poorer performances, even though he came out slightly on top. Hitchens would have been better than Harris in that particular debate. Harris is more contemplating, whereas Hitchens is more direct. I like Hitchens v. McGrath, even though McGrath has one of the most dry and boring rhetorics there is. The only person worse is Dinesh D'Souza, with his constant shouting.

I'd recommend some videos with Daniel Dennett as well such as http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3133438412578691486 .

There are also some audio from one of his books, kinds of minds, that can be found http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-65357891158939615

They are NOT separate

Religions make fact claims about the natural world. QED.

 

[Cyrus]

Religions make fact claims about the natural world. QED.

Precisely. (BTW, was it harris or dawkins that said that line?)

Ill check out those links, thanks. As for Harris v. Wolpe, I think he bested wolpe. It was the Q&A that wolpe seemed to be strong.

 

[Moridin]

Precisely. (BTW, was it harris or dawkins that said that line?)

None of them. Both have probably discussed it at some point though.

 

[Cyrus]

No, I remember in a video one made that line. Maybe it was hitchens. He said those exact words.

 

[Cyrus]

Temporal Lobes and God



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z4B5BYbjf8&feature=related

 

[Moridin]

Cyrus, have you seen or read anything by the fifth horseman of the apocalypse (Victor Stenger)? I have almost finished his earlier "The Comprehensible Cosmos; Where Do The Laws of Physics Come From?". His latest book is very interesting.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Sam Harris is a bit of an Orientophile.

Gotta love the Dawkins, though. Anybody see "Enemies of Reason"? The part where the (I think) astrologer was lecturing him on DNA was awesome.

 

[Moridin]

Sam Harris is a bit of an Orientophile.

Gotta love the Dawkins, though. Anybody see "Enemies of Reason"? The part where the (I think) astrologer was lecturing him on DNA was awesome.

It was a faith healer =)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047

 

[Cyrus]

Sam Harris is a bit of an Orientophile.

Gotta love the Dawkins, though. Anybody see "Enemies of Reason"? The part where the (I think) astrologer was lecturing him on DNA was awesome.

Yeah, I've seen parts I and II. Also, I agree harris is into meditation, but that is part of his PhD area of research in Neurology. But I still think Harris is fantastic.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Nah, I didn't mean just meditation. I saw one of his lectures on video, and while condemning the Judeo-Christian religions, he veers and starts praising Buddhists and the like.

I mean, when he said "they are non-violent, yet religious" I was like "Sure, that's a great plus for them." But it just seems like he actually buys into some of the "Ancient Chinese" or what have you mystique concerning Buddhism.

Here it is if you want to watch it (like 90 min long)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8013281663903762676&q=sam+harris+lecture&total=32&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

[Poop-Loops]

It was a faith healer =)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047

I just remembered this is a physics forum. I can get all pissed about the guy who said physicists somehow monopolized the word "quantum". What the hell is that? I would have KTFO'ed the guy if I had been there.

It's like saying I am eating cat, which is really pork, but veterinarians monopolized the word "cat", so that's why everybody thinks I'm crazy.

 

[G01]

It was a faith healer =)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047

Oh man, that was HILARIOUS! Did see not know see was talking to Richard Dawkins?!


I think when he went to the Alternative Medicine Fair and saw the "Quantum Healing with the help of Angels" stand was the moment I lost all faith in humanity...again...:rofl:

 

[ShawnD]

Temporal Lobes and God

While I thought the Beyond Belief series was basically a 10-hour circle jerk, this video is fascinating. It's a case study rather than "well I think that god..."

 

[Cyrus]

What do you mean by 10 hour circle jerk?

 

[ShawnD]

What do you mean by 10 hour circle jerk?

They all repeated the exact same thing with no input from the other side. The only guy who made any attempt to bring balance was Scott Atran, and he tore a few new a-holes when he did that.

 

[Cyrus]

Not at all. If you watch carefully, the old guy in the front was quick to point out that Atrans comments were 'irrelevant', as they were. I don't agree that they repeated the same thing, and in fact there was debate among them from within.

As for input from the other side, I don't see why they should give them that benifit. It was a conference not a debate.

I think Atran looked very foolish, obviously mentally masterbating over his own research on what causes a person to become a suicide bomber but contributing nothing with his remarks which were mostly off topic rants. He just wanted to seem smart by talking about himself, but came off as foolish.

 

[ShawnD]

Not at all. If you watch carefully, the old guy in the front was quick to point out that Atrans comments were 'irrelevant', as they were. I don't agree that they repeated the same thing, and in fact there was debate among them from within.

Scott brought a dose of reality when he pointed out that their observations had little to do with Islam and everything to do with Arabic culture. This entire conference was about scientists getting up there and saying "oh well Muslims are suicide bombers so Islam promotes suicide bombers". That is a logical fallacy. Correlation != causation. When Scott said their behavior was more 'Arabic' what he means is that religion itself is not the main part of the culture causing that behavior. Let me give an example. If I take a girl out for a nice steak dinner, would you say that's part of Christian culture or would you say that's part of North American culture to eat steak? Most Americans are Christian and most Americans like steak, but the flaw is to connect steak with religion. I'm not religious and I still eat steak, just like a Christian down in Texas does. Religion is not the underlying symmetry between me and a Texan. The underlying cause is that we're both part of North America, and we both follow North American culture.

It's foolish to assume Arab politics are directly caused by Islamic fundamentalism. That's like saying all American presidents are directly influenced by Christianity, even though it's arguable that a lot of them have historically not been religious at all. Weren't the founding fathers deists? What if they were moderate christians instead? Would the constitution be radically different than it is now, or just slightly different? Would Arab politics be completely different without Islam, or just slightly different? Sweden and Norway have incredibly high rates of atheism, so would you say social democracy is caused by atheism while social conservatism is caused by Christianity? That is a gross oversimplification and it's probably wrong.

Then Scott's second point was a graph showing that scapegoating was just as high among atheists as it was with christians and muslims. That means even if the Arab peninsula was 100% atheist, scapegoating would be just as bad as it is now and they would still hate Israel but for different reasons. Eliminating religion will not eliminate irrationality, nor will it create tolerance. That seems to be the focus of this conference and Scott Atran was the only guy willing to bust some balls and say that was a BS assumption to begin with.

 

[Cyrus]

This entire conference was about scientists getting up there and saying "oh well Muslims are suicide bombers so Islam promotes suicide bombers".

Well, no. It was about getting rid of the irrationality of religion in society (science, medicine, politics) which leads to harmful end products. It was not solely about islam or suicide bombers, hence my statement about his self masterubation on his own research.

When Scott said their behavior was more 'Arabic' what he means is that religion itself is not the main part of the culture causing that behavior. Let me give an example. If I take a girl out for a nice steak dinner, would you say that's part of Christian culture or would you say that's part of North American culture to eat steak? Most Americans are Christian and most Americans like steak, but the flaw is to connect steak with religion. I'm not religious and I still eat steak, just like a Christian down in Texas does. Religion is not the underlying symmetry between me and a Texan. The underlying cause is that we're both part of North America, and we both follow North American culture.

Thats a rather bad analogy, so I won't go into it. What harris, dawkins, and hitchens are saying is that it is the moderates that give support for these kinds of people when they do not publicly denonce them. Also, Atran must have forgotten about the Danish cartoons and the uproar it caused across the board in muslim countries. To say the mosques have no major factors is academically dishonest on his part.

It's foolish to assume Arab politics are directly caused by Islamic fundamentalism.
That's like saying all American presidents are directly influenced by Christianity, even though it's arguable that a lot of them have historically not been religious at all. Weren't the founding fathers deists? What if they were moderate christians instead? Would the constitution be radically different than it is now, or just slightly different? Would Arab politics be completely different without Islam, or just slightly different? Sweden and Norway have incredibly high rates of atheism, so would you say social democracy is caused by atheism while social conservatism is caused by Christianity? That is a gross oversimplification and it's probably wrong.

After reading that long paragraph, I'm trying to see your question but having a hard time. In regards to your first point, all I have to do is think of Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iran for Middle Eastern politics being influenced by fundamental Islam. (Or Saudi Arabia for that matter).

Next, yes the founding fathers were mostly deists. The constitution would be radically different had Jefferson been a moderate christian. That much is obvious if you know american history. He took major issue with the bible and even rewrote it himself in what is the "Jeffersonian Bible". He read thomas Paine who was very much a deist. Were it not for Jefferson this country would be a christian nation by now.

No one said atheism causes democracy, so I don't know why your making claims no one has said (and that's exactly what I am saying Atran is doing in his rants).

Then Scott's second point was a graph showing that scapegoating was just as high among atheists as it was with christians and muslims. That means even if the Arab peninsula was 100% atheist, scapegoating would be just as bad as it is now and they would still hate Israel but for different reasons. Eliminating religion will not eliminate irrationality, nor will it create tolerance. That seems to be the focus of this conference and Scott Atran was the only guy willing to bust some balls and say that was a BS assumption to begin with.

Im not going to argue your hypothetical 'what if' the arab peninsula was 100% athiest. Its not, and its pointless to do so. No one said eliminating religion will eliminate irrationality (again a false argument). They said religion is a harmful form of irrationality that is much better replaced by more mild forms of mysticism such as deism and not theism. So, I think you missed the point of the conference and should watch the clips over again.

 

[Cyrus]

For those interested, here is Atrans talk.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5639630801606888657&q=Scott+Atran&total=11&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

While not a bad talk, I don't think it addressed the conference's main point on elimination irrational forms of behaivor in society. He was mainly tooting his own horn, and a damn arrogant ***hole in the process.

Just 40 years after a famous TIME magazine cover asked "Is God Dead?" the answer appears to be a resounding "No!" According to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in a recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine, "God is Winning". Religions are increasingly a geopolitical force to be reckoned with. Fundamentalist movements - some violent in the extreme - are growing. Science and religion are at odds in the classrooms and courtrooms. And a return to religious values is widely touted as an antidote to the alleged decline in public morality. After two centuries, could this be twilight for the Enlightenment project and the beginning of a new age of unreason? Will faith and dogma trump rational inquiry, or will it be possible to reconcile religious and scientific worldviews? Can evolutionary biology, anthropology and neuroscience help us to better understand how we construct beliefs, and experience empathy, fear and awe? Can science help us create a new rational narrative as poetic and powerful as those that have traditionally sustained societies? Can we treat religion as a natural phenomenon? Can we be good without God? And if not God, then what?

This is a critical moment in the human situation, and The Science Network in association with the Crick-Jacobs Center brought together an extraordinary group of scientists and philosophers to explore answers to these questions. The conversation took place at the Salk Institute, La Jolla, CA from November 5-7, 2006.

Nothing to do with Islam, nothing to do with suicide bombers. Sorry Scott.

 

[Cyrus]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2417032549356504070&q=Richard+Sloan&total=68&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

This is an interesting talk by Richard Sloan on religion and the role its playing in modern medicine and how the quality of peer reviewed medical journals are going down because of it.

 

[ShawnD]

Jesus Christ I hate internet explorer. I typed out a post for like 20 minutes and it just lost the entire thing because it doesn't save any of the data when you hit the back button. Whoever made IE should be killed
/rant

Well, no. It was about getting rid of the irrationality of religion in society (science, medicine, politics) which leads to harmful end products. It was not solely about islam or suicide bombers, hence my statement about his self masterubation on his own research.

He calls on his own data because he's the only person there who has any data. Everyone else is just looking at historical figures and saying something like "well Newton could calculate this but he was held back by religion" even though a more plausible explanation is laziness. I guess Occam's Razor doesn't apply when it doesn't fit your stereotypes about people who are mildly religious.

Thats a rather bad analogy, so I won't go into it. What harris, dawkins, and hitchens are saying is that it is the moderates that give support for these kinds of people when they do not publicly denonce them. Also, Atran must have forgotten about the Danish cartoons and the uproar it caused across the board in muslim countries. To say the mosques have no major factors is academically dishonest on his part.

You're making that same mistake of referring to Arab countries as Muslim countries. You can't tie insane behavior to religion just because all of the insane people in one area, called the middle east, happen to be of the same religion. I've worked with lots of Muslim chemists, and they all seemed like fairly level headed people. The one difference was that those Muslims I knew were born in Canada rather than Saudi Arabia. They grew up with North American culture rather than Arab culture. Same religion, different culture, drastically different behavior. Logically it would make sense that the religion is not the direct cause of the culture, and that the behavior has a lot more to do with culture than it does with religion.

After reading that long paragraph, I'm trying to see your question but having a hard time. In regards to your first point, all I have to do is think of Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iran for Middle Eastern politics being influenced by fundamental Islam. (Or Saudi Arabia for that matter).

I'll tangent a little bit here, but stay with me on this. Are politics in the US, not including public elections, directly affected by Christianity? Does Hillary Clinton go to church before voting on a bill? Does McCain pray before voting on foreign policy? Does Obama read the bible to see how cigarettes and alcohol should be taxed? Based on this you would say US politics are not directly affected by Christianity itself, but are affected by North American culture as a whole. North America demonizes smoking, so the tax rates on smoking are very high even though the bible says nothing about taxing cigarettes. US politics are not driven by religion. (I'll tell you when the tangent ends)

I also made the point that Sweden and Norway are social democracies. Is that because atheism causes social democracy or is it because Scandanavian culture promotes social democracy? USSR was atheist as well, but they were the exact opposite of democracy, so clearly there's no correlation between those. Scandanavian politics are not driven by religion.

Now going back (end of tangent), let's summarize that.
US politics (not including public elections) are motivated by Christianity - false
Social democracy in Sweden and Norway are motivated by atheism - false
Insanity in Arab nations is motivated by Islam - true?

Just at a glance, something appears wrong about these conclusions. The simplest explanation is that Islam is not the cause of insane middle east politics. This was the point Scott Atran was trying to make. Arab culture is very tribal, sort of a "them vs us" mentality. That mentality leads to separating people based on their religion as well. Don't blame Islam for everything that is wrong with Arab culture.

Next, yes the founding fathers were mostly deists. The constitution would be radically different had Jefferson been a moderate christian. That much is obvious if you know american history. He took major issue with the bible and even rewrote it himself in what is the "Jeffersonian Bible". He read thomas Paine who was very much a deist. Were it not for Jefferson this country would be a christian nation by now.

That may be true, but it's hard to say religion is the dominant factor when two countries can have the same religion but very different laws and opinions on things. Just as an example of this, North America sees sex as being worse than murder. A TV station can show a murder scene in a movie at 8pm, but it's never legal to have a sex scene on TV. France, like the US, is also a very Christian nation, but they have no problems with sex on TV. Same religion, completely different culture.

No one said atheism causes democracy, so I don't know why your making claims no one has said (and that's exactly what I am saying Atran is doing in his rants).

I find it amusing how you think the idea of atheism causing democracy is stupid but the idea of Islam causing suicide bombers is reasonable. It's the same stupid argument. Atheism does not cause democracy, and Islam does not created suicide bombers. Again, Arab culture causes suicide bombers.

No one said eliminating religion will eliminate irrationality (again a false argument). They said religion is a harmful form of irrationality that is much better replaced by more mild forms of mysticism such as deism and not theism. So, I think you missed the point of the conference and should watch the clips over again.

They're still basing this on the assumption that humans won't just find another way to separate themselves. First we hate each other because we're a different color. Then it's because they're a different religion. Then it's because people in this area talk funny. Then it's because they want to be called Unified Atheist League instead of United Atheist Alliance. Stopping religion won't stop people from being idiots.

 

[Huckleberry]

Just finished watching the first video posted, "Beyond Belief"

I thought overall the presentation was very good. The connection the speaker makes between the fall of Arabic scientific progress and one man claiming mathematics was the work of the devil was weak. His argument that religion prevented Newton from understanding the movements within the solar system was also weak. Then at the end of the lecture, after 45 minutes of speaking about how religion exists because of the limits of our understanding, the topic goes to converting (that was the word he used) the religious to a more scientific perspective by eliminating religious belief completely. That's when he lost me.

I have no doubts that religion is full of myth. I have sympathy for the progress of science when religious myth contradicts clear results. It is ignorance to hold absolute faith in a particular myth simply because it is a part of one's religion, when that myth can be falsified . There are aspects of religions that, when translated literally, are clearly incorrect. Some devout people are immune to reason in these matters. In matters that are falsifiable, reason should preside. Anyone who concerns themselves with truth should question their beliefs in light of the evidence.

On the other hand, when the scientific community makes claims such as 'God does not exist', or blanket statements like 'religion is wrong', I can't help but dismiss their arguments. They are not speaking scientifically. They are themselves speaking from a position of absolute faith for which they have no scientific evidence. While I would expect unfalsifiable beliefs from religions, I cannot accept unfalsifiable testimony from science. That is not reasonable.

So when the lecture turned to the idea of removing religious beliefs completely I had to disagree with their intent. Rather, I think that science will achieve this piecemeal, as it gathers scientific evidence to support it's claims. To attack religion in its entirity is to replace one dogmatic belief with a worse dogmatic belief, veiled in the guise of reason. Personally, I think science should not concern itself at all with denouncing religion; only with promoting reason.

What concerns me most is the devaluing of the personal experience, mentioned briefly in the Q&A section of the lecture. While I can envision a peaceful world without religion, I can't envision one that reduces all things to the physical without some method of reverence for the value of the human condition. I believe that it is within the realm of possibility of science to one day explain fully the human condition, but I have serious doubts as to whether it can ever convey any appreciation for it. This is why beliefs are so important to people, or to me at least. I believe that this is why people vigorously defend falsifiable religious myths, because it would take away from them some important aspect of their human condition without introducing a substitute.

This doesn't look like an honest strategy to improve the economic future or enlighten mankind. The evidence presented on those fronts in this video was weak. It appears more as a rebuttal, a counterattack to intelligent design, or 'stupid design' as it was reffered to. I do believe that reason is a necessary part for future economic stability and enlightenment, but I do not at all believe that it is the only part.

Still, an interesting video. Thanks for sharing.

edit - You know, the best way to destroy religion would be to prove the existence of God. Ironic, don't you think?

 

[Cyrus]

He calls on his own data because he's the only person there who has any data. Everyone else is just looking at historical figures and saying something like "well Newton could calculate this but he was held back by religion" even though a more plausible explanation is laziness. I guess Occam's Razor doesn't apply when it doesn't fit your stereotypes about people who are mildly religious.

You REALLY missed the point of Tysons lecture. Yet again, you are quibbling about irrelevant details that are not pertinent. His point was how even great scientists fell back on religion and creative design when they came to their limits of knowledge at the time.

You're making that same mistake of referring to Arab countries as Muslim countries. You can't tie insane behavior to religion just because all of the insane people in one area, called the middle east, happen to be of the same religion. I've worked with lots of Muslim chemists, and they all seemed like fairly level headed people. The one difference was that those Muslims I knew were born in Canada rather than Saudi Arabia. They grew up with North American culture rather than Arab culture. Same religion, different culture, drastically different behavior. Logically it would make sense that the religion is not the direct cause of the culture, and that the behavior has a lot more to do with culture than it does with religion.

Again, false argument. I never said this. I said influenced.

Are politics in the US, not including public elections, directly affected by Christianity?

Yes, they are. See stem cell research, intellegent design, abortion, and the fact that most candidates have a large religious base. Did you see Evo's thread on a religious resolution passed by congress for religious holidays, including christmas.

North America demonizes smoking, so the tax rates on smoking are very high even though the bible says nothing about taxing cigarettes. US politics are not driven by religion.

What kind of nonsense is this? I don't see any more point to this than your first tangent.

I also made the point that Sweden and Norway are social democracies. Is that because atheism causes social democracy or is it because Scandanavian culture promotes social democracy? USSR was atheist as well, but they were the exact opposite of democracy, so clearly there's no correlation between those. Scandanavian politics are not driven by religion.

Again, I never said it was. FALSE ARGUMENT.

US politics (not including public elections) are motivated by Christianity - false
Social democracy in Sweden and Norway are motivated by atheism - false
Insanity in Arab nations is motivated by Islam - true?

I would add in:

Your putting words in my mouth: TRUE

Just at a glance, something appears wrong about these conclusions.

Yes, because there your conclusions and NOT mine.

Don't blame Islam for everything that is wrong with Arab culture.

Again, neither I, nor the people in the talks did that.

That may be true, but it's hard to say religion is the dominant factor when two countries can have the same religion but very different laws and opinions on things. Just as an example of this, North America sees sex as being worse than murder. A TV station can show a murder scene in a movie at 8pm, but it's never legal to have a sex scene on TV. France, like the US, is also a very Christian nation, but they have no problems with sex on TV. Same religion, completely different culture.

Huh?

I find it amusing how you think the idea of atheism causing democracy is stupid but the idea of Islam causing suicide bombers is reasonable. It's the same stupid argument. Atheism does not cause democracy, and Islam does not created suicide bombers. Again, Arab culture causes suicide bombers.

Sighhhhhh......I never said either of those things.

They're still basing this on the assumption that humans won't just find another way to separate themselves. First we hate each other because we're a different color. Then it's because they're a different religion. Then it's because people in this area talk funny. Then it's because they want to be called Unified Atheist League instead of United Atheist Alliance. Stopping religion won't stop people from being idiots.

You are the first person here that basically argued against yourself in your own post, as I said nothing you argued against. :rofl: Atran has a tear in his eye somewhere in france right now.


Seriously, pay attention.

 

[Moridin]

Altran needs to have a discussion with someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and what she has gone through, then let us see if he appeals to culture.

Logically it would make sense that the religion is not the direct cause of the culture, and that the behavior has a lot more to do with culture than it does with religion.

When the religious scriptures themselves promote certain actions and beliefs, then it has everything to do with religion. Cultural apologetics can not save you.

US politics (not including public elections) are motivated by Christianity - false

Bush is performing new crusades in the middle east and claims that god has told him to do it. The same goes for Blair. QED

Social democracy in Sweden and Norway are motivated by atheism - false

It is certainly motivated by secular values. We could say that they discovered it because religious dogmatism got removed.

The simplest explanation is that Islam is not the cause of insane middle east politics. This was the point Scott Atran was trying to make. Arab culture is very tribal, sort of a "them vs us" mentality. That mentality leads to separating people based on their religion as well. Don't blame Islam for everything that is wrong with Arab culture.

1500+ years of fundamentalist religion ensures that everything that is "wrong" with "arab culture" (if such even exists; you seem to arbitrarily assume this) comes from Islam. This is easy to understand if you learn the history and read the Qur'an and the hadiths.

France, like the US, is also a very Christian nation, but they have no problems with sex on TV. Same religion, completely different culture.

False. France is very atheistic / secular. About 50% of the US population are biblical creationist fundamentalists. Your ignorance is showing.

Atheism does not cause democracy, and Islam does not created suicide bombers.

There is almost a universal correlation. The most democratic states in the world are secular / atheistic, such as Sweden, Norway, Canada and so on and they have the highest living standards. Countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and so on are the most Islamic states, and consequently, have the lowest standards of living.

Islam creates suicide terrorists because their religious scriptures support and glorifies it. I'm afraid that your personal ideology of cultural relativism gets in the way of facts.

Again, Arab culture causes suicide bobmers. Scandanavian culture causes social democracy.

What exactly is this so called "Arab" culture? What is Scandinavian culture? What relevance do they have?

Ask yourself this: Where are the Buddhist suicide bombers?. They have been tortured and invaded by the Chinese, so according to your logic, they should be blowing themselves up by now. I'll tell you the answer: Buddhism does not glorify martyrdom the way Islam does. This is a fundamental disproof of your entire argument.

They're still basing this on the assumption that humans won't just find another way to separate themselves. First we hate each other because we're a different color. Then it's because they're a different religion. Then it's because people in this area talk funny. Then it's because they want to be called Unified Atheist League instead of United Atheist Alliance. Stopping religion won't stop people from being idiots.

Enforcing science and reason will. Both racism and nationalism are substitute for Messianism and basically dogmatic religions in their own right.

On the other hand, when the scientific community makes claims such as 'God does not exist', or blanket statements like 'religion is wrong', I can't help but dismiss their arguments. They are not speaking scientifically. They are themselves speaking from a position of absolute faith for which they have no scientific evidence. While I would expect unfalsifiable beliefs from religions, I cannot accept unfalsifiable testimony from science. That is not reasonable.

There is a growing consensus within the scientific community that the existence of the supernatural can be scientifically disproven. In fact, 93% of the members of the national academies of science and royal society are atheists.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

No faith needed. Holding on to iron age myths about the world is what needs faith. This position is certainly not unfalsifiable. Successful prayer experiments could disprove it quite nicely.

To attack religion in its entirity is to replace one dogmatic belief with a worse dogmatic belief, veiled in the guise of reason.

How can it be a "dogmatic belief" if it can be demonstrated to be correct?

Personally, I think science should not concern itself at all with denouncing religion; only with promoting reason.

Is there a relevant difference? Religions exist for the very fact that unimpeded superstition has been allowed to run amok.

"Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths" - Karl Popper

 

[Cyrus]

On the other hand, when the scientific community makes claims such as 'God does not exist', or blanket statements like 'religion is wrong', I can't help but dismiss their arguments.

Why? Do you believe in Thor as well, or are you an Athorist? How about Zeus? They are not blanket statements, its just you have not read any of their books which goes into more depth.

To attack religion in its entirity is to replace one dogmatic belief with a worse dogmatic belief, veiled in the guise of reason.

Thats not a dogmatic belief.

Personally, I think science should not concern itself at all with denouncing religion; only with promoting reason.

Why not? It sure can, should, and does. Personally, I would love to see more of it. That way when people mention God, creative intellegence, or stem cell reserach, people will just laugh at them like there nuts. (The same way we laught at people who still blindly believe evlis is still alive).

What concerns me most is the devaluing of the personal experience, mentioned briefly in the Q&A section of the lecture.

Again, this has to do mainly with the brain making false interpretations from signals it gets. For more on this, you should read Dawkins book, or watch Ramachandrans lecture.

While I can envision a peaceful world without religion, I can't envision one that reduces all things to the physical without some method of reverence for the value of the human condition.

Thats exactly what they are NOT trying to do, and they all clearly said so themselves.

I think you misunderstood many of the points made in the lectures.

 

[Moridin]

While I can envision a peaceful world without religion, I can't envision one that reduces all things to the physical without some method of reverence for the value of the human condition.

To be honest, that is an irrational fear of reductionism. Science are exploring morality, consciousness and meaning as we speak, so that gap is being filled with scientific knowledge. The supernatural is running out of places to hid.

 

[Cyrus]

I suggest watching this video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8680343761655636470&q=beyond+belief&total=1445&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

[Moridin]

Here are some videos with Ayaan Hirsi Ali with her experience with Islam:





Cultural relativism is an intellectual poverty.

 

[ShawnD]

Seriously, pay attention.

First you said this:

Well, no. It was about getting rid of the irrationality of religion in society (science, medicine, politics) which leads to harmful end products.

I replied with:

They're still basing this on the assumption that humans won't just find another way to separate themselves. First we hate each other because we're a different color. Then it's because they're a different religion. Then it's because people in this area talk funny. Then it's because they want to be called Unified Atheist League instead of United Atheist Alliance. Stopping religion won't stop people from being idiots.

Then you come back with:

You are the first person here that basically argued against yourself in your own post, as I said nothing you argued against

So what exactly are you saying? You said religion is irrational and has harmful effect, to which I say religion is the result of irrationality. Your reponse, of course, is LOL I DIDNT SAY THAT LOL. Good luck trying to backpedal out of this one.

What kind of nonsense is this? I don't see any more point to this than your first tangent.

It's nice to see the Chewbacca Defense is still alive and kicking. Even when I directedly stated "Does Obama read the bible to see how cigarettes and alcohol should be taxed?" you still jump up and scream that this is all confusing and makes no sense. Sure it's confusing. There's no possible way a politician could make decisions without consulting with religion, or make policies that are not religious in nature, such as taxing alcohol and cigarettes even though the bible makes no mention of them being bad
Culture is not religion. How many times do I need to say that.

Again, neither I, nor the people in the talks [blamed Islam for Arab cultural issues]

Actually they did, repeatedly. You even said yourself:

What harris, dawkins, and hitchens are saying is that it is the moderates that give support for [terrorists/bombers] when they do not publicly denonce them. Also, Atran must have forgotten about the Danish cartoons and the uproar it caused across the board in muslim countries.

You directly stated that Islam is tolerant of violence, rather than Arab culture being tolerant of violence, and that it was across the board is Muslim countries as opposed to saying Arab countries. You then tried to backpedal by saying

Again, false argument. I never said this. I said influenced

Oh so Islam influences people, but only people in Arab countries. Those Muslims I work with just don't apply, right? Do you sometimes draw the trend line first then see which data points fit the trend line?

Your opinions about Islam and religion in general are both ignorant and offensive. You'll jump on the bandwagon and say religion causes irrationality and attrocities, but look the other way when an atheist like Stalin kills 20 million people. He may have killed millions, but at least he wasn't driven by irrationality of religion, right guyz?