Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First to say that I am an atheist, but I am very much an atheist of the 'live and let live' persuasion, so I implore theists not to go running immediately from this thread...
I wanted to share these two programs, which although admittedly are far more leaning in favour of the atheist side, we can actually find atheists and theists managing to find some common ground here in a civilised way. For this reason I found both debates thoroughly enjoyable.
Just to briefly introduce the participants:
The first program is a radio show called 'The Infinite Monkey Cage' - a science show presented by physicist Brian Cox and comedian Robin Ince, with guests Chris Addison (comedian), Victor Stock (Anglican Priest and Dean of Guilford Cathedral) and Adam Rutherford (Evolutionary Biologist).
The second program is a debate between Richard Dawkins and the then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.
Apologies for the length of the shows. The first one is 25 minutes and the second one is 1 hour 30 minutes.
Apologies for the plethora of English accents for people who find them grating.
Given the length of the programs, I don't expect any immediate response (if any) but I would welcome any comments you may have, - anything that struck you from either of the programs.
I like this towards the end of the first program:
"What science is driven by is a sense of wonder.../...the people I really find difficult to understand are the people that don't notice that the universe is beautiful and worth looking at and exploring"
All science can do is say that a literalist interpretation of Mythology is invalid, nothing more. If you are like me, someone who never tool Mythology literally in the first place, you just have a bunch of egg heads going on about nothing in those videos. Others may realize that literalism was wrong and those of us who are not were right all the time, but it has nothing to do with religion.
For example: Science proves that the flood Myth didn't literally happen. Any other statement on the flood Myth would be unscientific. If someone said "well, I don't take the Myth literally but believe it is a story about man being humbled before nature and has great meaning." There is no SCIENTIFIC statement to be made against that notion. A scientist could make a personal argument in their capacity as a laymen in the fields of religion, philosophy etc, but they can't use science to respond to something that is not scientific to begin with, and finding meaning has nothing to do with science.
Stephen Jay Gould, a paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and agnostic called it "non-overlapping Magisteria", the concept that religion and science are two completely different things, along with art and, and that one can't really comment on the other. This view was adopted by the National Academy of Sciences amongst others...
Now, lame brains like Richard Dawkins, a man who has never really studied religion, says that religion "always makes naturalistic claims," and so science and religion will always be at odds. The truth is, religion makes naturalistic claims about as much as a joke makes a "claim" that a three blondes actually walked into a bar. The "claims" of religion, much like the "claims" of blonde jokes, were NEVER meant to be taken literally. Those of us who have (again, unlike Dawkins) actually studied religion in college (real colleges, not theology schools) know better.
And before I get the inevitable "but the ancients took their Myths literally" line, let me say this:
1) They actually didn't. Origen, way back in the 3rd Century, said the Bible could only be understood when taken as metaphor. The Old Testament Prophet Hosea interpreted Jacob's struggle with the angel not literally, but as a struggle in prayer...so, the Bible wasn't meant to be taken as anything but literal, despite the fact that the Church Fathers (like Origen) and the Bible itself don't take it literally?
2) Who says religion can't evolve? Dawkins, (again, who never studied religion) said that it is betraying faith to not take religious Myth literally...huh? If he ever studied religion, he would see that most of them do not have any mandatory literalism cause...and in fact, many religions (like Buddhism, Wicca, Asatru, Gnosticism, etc) essentially say that Literalism is a sinful.
As for science being fascinating, guess what? That is an OPINION question that science cannot prove. I for one find science to be BORING AS HELL. I have better things to do than study the chemical composition of swamp gas or the density of rat droppings. I'm a humanities man, and enjoy being human very much.
...and why oh why did Alan Watts have to die young? Well of course, he didn't die. No one dies. His motion lives on, in the motion of the others he's moved, much like a rock hitting the water continues to move the water long after its own mass has hit the bottom.
Why do you think we're interested in watching 2 hours of videos for you to prosletyze? Are you willing to give us the same courtesy? Can I have 2 hours of your undivided attention to explain Christianity to you?
Why do you think we're interested in watching 2 hours of videos for you to prosletyze? Are you willing to give us the same courtesy? Can I have 2 hours of your undivided attention to explain Christianity to you?
I think you mean your particular little slice of the Christianity pie.
Why do you think we're interested in watching 2 hours of videos for you to prosletyze? Are you willing to give us the same courtesy? Can I have 2 hours of your undivided attention to explain Christianity to you?
Vizio you could not have me more wrong. I have been contributing to the Atheist and Agnosticism forum for quite some time but I rarely venture on to the Religion and Spirituality forum because I don't feel it is my place. I think people are free to believe whatever they like as long as they are hurting no-one. I have said so many, many, many times. As far as I can remember I have never made a single attempt to proselytise to anyone - even on the atheism forum. If my intention was to proselytise I'd have done so before now.
This is not an attempt to convert anyone to Christianity or anyone to Atheism. It was an attempt to show that it is possible to find a middle ground, peacefully between the two, as you would know if you had read my opening post.
In the Dawkins / Williams debate, 50% of what is said comes from Rowan Williams.
In the radio program, the Brian Cox introduces Dean Victor Stock as a friend who he invited to a tour of CERN, as they found they had more in common than they realised.
Of course you are free to completely ignore this thread - nobody is forcing you to watch anything. If you don't want to contribute anything, of course that's your call.
Don't watch the contents. That's fine. But then don't accuse me of anything either.
--------------------------
In fact now that I think about it, I was inspired to start this post thanks to a recent brief conversation I had with NoCapo in which both of us were defending a point about having faith in God and having an enquiring mind, which led me to think about these debates (I think I have posted them both before somewhere on the forum).
Last edited by Cruithne; 08-19-2013 at 06:40 PM..
Reason: Addition to post.
Can I have 2 hours of your undivided attention to explain Christianity to you?
Nope.
New episodes of Duck Dynasty have started, life is short, and I have NO desire to be preached at by someone who thinks millions of people are going to hell. I'd much rather watch a bunch of rednecks bow their heads and thank Jesus for the delicious frog legs.
Sorry. (If Brian Cox is a hoot, I'll give him a shot. Men who are a hoot tend to be worth listening to. Especially if they're physicists.)
New episodes of Duck Dynasty have started, life is short, and I have NO desire to be preached at by someone who thinks millions of people are going to hell. I'd much rather watch a bunch of rednecks bow their heads and thank Jesus for the delicious frog legs.
Sorry. (If Brian Cox is a hoot, I'll give him a shot. Men who are a hoot tend to be worth listening to. Especially if they're physicists.)
Too soon to rep again but over the past 10 days, I've watched my first couple-dozen episodes of Duck Dynasty.
Pretty sure I'm hooked. At least for now. Those folks have Spirit. (I capped the "S" on purpose.)
New episodes of Duck Dynasty have started, life is short, and I have NO desire to be preached at by someone who thinks millions of people are going to hell. I'd much rather watch a bunch of rednecks bow their heads and thank Jesus for the delicious frog legs.
Sorry. (If Brian Cox is a hoot, I'll give him a shot. Men who are a hoot tend to be worth listening to. Especially if they're physicists.)
That's my point.....I am sure you don't want to listen to someone prosletyze.
On a side note....I do like the Duck Dynasty guys. They get it.
I made it 57 minutes into the debate between the Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Dawkins.
After about the first fifteen minutes of introductions, they spent the next 42 minutes agreeing with each other, or briefly disagreeing with each other before discovering they agreed with each other.
Richard Dawkins certainly is massively knowledgeable about a wide variety of topics. He did about 80% of the speaking, while the Archbishop nodded and made witty comments.
The Archbishop's humility was impressive though. That can't be easy to endlessly agree with your opponent in a debate in front of an international audience...particularly in a religious discussion.
It was a privilege to see those two seemingly good men discuss the topic. I didn't really learn squat though, other than a few interesting pieces of information about evolution from Richard Dawkins. I think I know how the video will end...more agreeing with each other.
Thank's for the video Cruithne.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
