-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Dawkin's "The Enemies of Reason" Part 1 video.
- Thread starter Xdrive05
- Start date
- Status
Instigator
Banned
Alucard said:
There's still plenty of wonder left in the world. It doesn't have to be 'magical'.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Yixian said:
You said it. I'm always annoyed by people who talk about believing in random rubbish so they can experience "something more" when they blind themselves to the ACTUAL wonders of the universe.
Crayon Shinchan
Aquafina Fanboy
Alucard said:
Magic... Magic? Mag... ugh!
Alucard said:
Magic is cool in fantasy realms where it exists. So too is spirituality when there is some rational evidence. It is no coincidence that when I play freeform fantasy RPGs, I tend to favor Clerics and Paladins.
There is no magical force or energy on Earth, no midi-chlorian energy field, no mako, no mana, no whatever the fuck. A suggestion that there is requires substantiation.
Xdrive05
Member
Alucard said:
If you can, check out his "Unweaving the Rainbow" book, where he takes on the claim that science allegedly takes out all of the poetry or "magic" in the world. I think he makes a very good case that science, by showing the strange truths about things, actually makes them more poetic than just making stuff up to try to be appealing. In other words, the truth is much more fascinating than even the wildest stories can be.
Alucard said:
YEA!
What, are we supposed to focus on the real things now?! Like the fact that were on a giant sphere plunging in no particularly definable direction almost 275 kilometers an hour through a vastness that is barely understandable ? BOOOORING *zzzzz*
EDIT: DNA TO THE RESCUE ~ !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8NHcQesYl8
Stoney Mason
Banned
To be fair I don't think he was being literally serious guys...but this is GAF so you never know to be honest.
Seriously, you don't put a smiley or a wink at the end of a sentence and people think you're being completely serious.
I support freedom of religion and belief, so long as it's not doing me any direct harm. If people want to believe that putting needles in your body is helpful in some way, even if it works on a strictly placebo level, then let them go to it I say.
The universe is magical enough as it is, I agree. I also think there should be more than one way of reading and decoding it.
I support freedom of religion and belief, so long as it's not doing me any direct harm. If people want to believe that putting needles in your body is helpful in some way, even if it works on a strictly placebo level, then let them go to it I say.
The universe is magical enough as it is, I agree. I also think there should be more than one way of reading and decoding it.
Alucard said:
I'm cool <ith magic when it s used to make Men dream and not mislead them. The guy is really just trying to get back "Light" to the world. And he is surely not trying to help people, more like making them free, able to do their own choice and not being blinded by illusions.
Thank's for the link very interesting. I wouldn't be quite as outspoken as Dawkins. My mother has terrible arthritis and the only thing that seems to offer some relief is Chinese acupuncture. If it works for her, then why shouldn't she believe in it?
Our limited senses and our limited knowledge of the universe, mean that our limited body of knowledge in science does not account for everything. You can't just simply dismiss everything which pushes the boundaries of your current knowledge as falsehoods. When in fact we understand less than 1% of the universe.
.....
Our limited senses and our limited knowledge of the universe, mean that our limited body of knowledge in science does not account for everything. You can't just simply dismiss everything which pushes the boundaries of your current knowledge as falsehoods. When in fact we understand less than 1% of the universe.
.....
Xdrive05
Member
nightez said:
The point is very clear here: No one is dismissing ANYTHING altogether. We just need evidence. There's a difference between saying, "there is no supernatural" and saying "there's no real reason to believe in a supernatural because there is no real evidence to support it."
Even though science hasn't explained everything yet, that doesn't mean you can just make stuff up. You have to be able to back up your claims, and something being popular doesn't make it true. Even if someone doesn't care passionately about truth, there are still some harms that can go with superstitious things too (like the closure issue with "talking to the dead" psychics).
As for your mom, that sucks hard. My aunt has severe arthritis and she has to be constantly medicated to keep it from messing with her day to day activities. It's been a real problem. But if your mom can be better treated with conventional medications, then I'd highly advise that for her sake. If acupuncture makes her happy, then that's cool too. Just wouldn't want her to be going through unnecessary pain or anything.
MrSardonic
The nerdiest nerd of all the nerds in nerdland
nightez said:
Congratulations. You've managed to complete miss the point.
As Mark Twain once said: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt". Thanks for playing.
The fact that some things work, like the acupuncture, is evidence enough in itself. You may not understand how exactly it works - based on the limitations of our knowledge. But you don't have evidence to prove it is a falsehood and you can't simply dismiss that which you don't understand.Xdrive05 said:
My mum is on conventional medicine. She takes nearly a dozen prescribed medications. The painkillers do nothing for her. The only thing that gives her some relief from symptoms is acupuncture. And this is something which has been documented by her doctors - who are scientists and are looking into it.
...
The Stealth Fox
Junior Member
I haven't watched the video yet, but I would think that if Dawkins mentioned acupuncture with regards to discussing how every claim should be empirically verifiable, it would be in the form of an example, not his main point.
The Stealth Fox
Junior Member
nightez said:
I think as many posters here have suggested, he's writing it off as a placebo effect.
Instigator
Banned
nightez said:
Clinical trials often include placebos to determine the real effect of whatever new medicine.
thesoapster
Member
nightez said:
I haven't watched the video yet...but, acupuncture, if done properly, can be a very effective tool. I know of someone who has it done to them regularly (like every month I think) and swears by it that it is the only solution that works for her.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Requesting that someone make an animated gif of Dawkins' hilarious blinking expression 27 seconds into the video
"God's Beard!"
Member
The only real magic is Bobby Darin's voice.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
What I don't care for is the false dichotomy that can come out of sniping contests between Science Vs Everything Else - as if you have to Pick Your Side. Don't give any credit to acupuncture - for example - or you'll be disrespecting the Wonders Science Shows Us.
Which is a load. It's fully possible to appreciate everything science is capable of showing us and still consider other things not contained or yet understood within the model of the universe it presents - which no matter how impressive, is still a model. Problem is, folks like Dawkins have admitted openly they can't really understand this - I believe he's generally shrugged and said things to the effect of "oh well, maybe people who are religious and do science compartmentalize their brain or something". Which, I have always seen as a curious oversight - I'd think he would be very keen on understanding how people integrate something as important to him as rationalism with other points of view.
Having said that, there is a big problem in that lots and lots of people /do/ operate within a context of ignorance. The issue I keep seeing though, is that we're sort of stuck between two warring extremes as the self-styled champions of science and rational thought try to "save us" from mankind's pit of delusion, yadda yadda. Meanwhile, the truly ignorant and fearful lash back. And you know what tends to happen on crusades.
Which is a load. It's fully possible to appreciate everything science is capable of showing us and still consider other things not contained or yet understood within the model of the universe it presents - which no matter how impressive, is still a model. Problem is, folks like Dawkins have admitted openly they can't really understand this - I believe he's generally shrugged and said things to the effect of "oh well, maybe people who are religious and do science compartmentalize their brain or something". Which, I have always seen as a curious oversight - I'd think he would be very keen on understanding how people integrate something as important to him as rationalism with other points of view.
Having said that, there is a big problem in that lots and lots of people /do/ operate within a context of ignorance. The issue I keep seeing though, is that we're sort of stuck between two warring extremes as the self-styled champions of science and rational thought try to "save us" from mankind's pit of delusion, yadda yadda. Meanwhile, the truly ignorant and fearful lash back. And you know what tends to happen on crusades.
Kaijima said:
this paragraph tells me you either have not payed much attention to Dawkins or read his book "The God Delusion." If you have read his book then I would have to guess you skipped the chapter that talks about why people of science still believe and why we are subject to superstition.
PS: for accupuncture look up "Placebo affect"
PhlegmMaster
Banned
I just finished watching it. I'm kind of disappointed, mostly for the same reason I was disappointed by RoAE. Dawkins should have spent less time showing how gullible, self-deluded, and wicked these people are, and spent more time explaining why they're gullible, deluded, and wicked. He's hammering the point about evidence, which is good and absolutely true, but being a sceptic is a bit more than that. Yes, personal and anecdotal evidence for an extraordinary claim is almost always crap, but he should have told us why. Yes, that sociology professor at the end was an idiot for talking about "different ways of interpreting evidence", and Dawkins must have thought that was obvious to everyone; it is to me and to most sceptics, but not to the people he's trying to convince. Etc...
Still, every little bit helps when it comes to crushing ignorance, so I'm glad Dawkins is doing this. It's just that he could have done it so much better.
Still, every little bit helps when it comes to crushing ignorance, so I'm glad Dawkins is doing this. It's just that he could have done it so much better.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
PhlegmMaster said:
I'm all for knowledge and stuff, but the way you word that is a bit scary.
ItsInMyVeins said:
The time for pussyfooting is not now. Ignorance is destructive and hinders progression, it needs to be called out and attacked head on. People shouldn't care whether it's a religion, a conspiracy theory or a scientific theory, if it isn't based on sound logic, it's bullshit until proven otherwise.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Yixian said:
Why didn't you say so at the get go? Problem is, obviously, solved!
Still, your "called out and attacked" almost does the same thing as PhlegmMasters post. I understand what you guys are saying, but you're just wording it so fucking poorly it's bound the be a hindrance.
Stoney Mason
Banned
The people who believe in Astrology and ghosts, and other paranormal things and such are the exact people who wouldn't watch this type of show. It's preaching to the choir which is fine but let's not pretend it's anymore than that.
Lucky Forward
Member
Isn't this only the first part of a series, though?PhlegmMaster said:
MrSardonic
The nerdiest nerd of all the nerds in nerdland
nightez said:
You're still missing the point. No one is saying that the current body of scientific knowledge explains everything. What is being said is that you need EVIDENCE to support claims.
Saying "it works for my friend" is not scientific evidence.
JzeroT1437
Member
MrSardonic said:
I ate tomatoes a lot when I was a kid and grew up to be 6'8.
Tomatoes make you tall confirmed.
PhlegmMaster
Banned
I think the replies by the gullible posters in this thread are hilarious. They can all be classified as something Dawkins has addressed in his 40 minute video.
Emotional attachment to ignorance. The old "more than one way to interpret the evidence" bit of nonsense. Anecdotal evidence. Putting a "hunch" ahead of evidence. The "but there's no PROOF it's not true!" dodge.
It's as if you all willingly lined up to be shot by Dawkins. It's really pathetic.
This is nothing more than the popular dogma that whenever there is a conflict of ideas, the truth necessarily lies halfway between the two extremes, which is obviously nonsense if you stop to think about it for two seconds. Sometimes, one side is right and the other is completely wrong. The ideal point on the credulity/scepticism scale isn't right between the two mindsets, it's scepticism, and each step towards credulity is one step farther away from reality.
Yes, our understanding of the universe is incomplete. Yes, we should remain open to new ideas and new possibilities. What is it exactly about these two statements that challenges the fact that an individual who's interested in the truth should not believe a claim without sufficient evidence?
Well, nothing, of course. A rational person is simultaneously perfectly open-minded to new ideas and perfectly sceptical of these new ideas.
About compartmentalization: Yes, many people compartmentalize. It's not logically possible to be credulous and sceptical about a claim. Irrational people are sceptical about some claims and credulous about other claims. When an irrational person is questioned as to why he chooses not to apply the same standards of evidence to a certain something as he does to everything else, his mind's compartmentalization will immediately become apparent. He'll say something like, "Well, it's because this is spirituality."
But that's no justification at all. It's just another way of saying that it's the part of his beliefs that he wants to believe despite the evidence.
Emotional attachment to ignorance. The old "more than one way to interpret the evidence" bit of nonsense. Anecdotal evidence. Putting a "hunch" ahead of evidence. The "but there's no PROOF it's not true!" dodge.
It's as if you all willingly lined up to be shot by Dawkins. It's really pathetic.
Kaijima said:
This is nothing more than the popular dogma that whenever there is a conflict of ideas, the truth necessarily lies halfway between the two extremes, which is obviously nonsense if you stop to think about it for two seconds. Sometimes, one side is right and the other is completely wrong. The ideal point on the credulity/scepticism scale isn't right between the two mindsets, it's scepticism, and each step towards credulity is one step farther away from reality.
Yes, our understanding of the universe is incomplete. Yes, we should remain open to new ideas and new possibilities. What is it exactly about these two statements that challenges the fact that an individual who's interested in the truth should not believe a claim without sufficient evidence?
Well, nothing, of course. A rational person is simultaneously perfectly open-minded to new ideas and perfectly sceptical of these new ideas.
About compartmentalization: Yes, many people compartmentalize. It's not logically possible to be credulous and sceptical about a claim. Irrational people are sceptical about some claims and credulous about other claims. When an irrational person is questioned as to why he chooses not to apply the same standards of evidence to a certain something as he does to everything else, his mind's compartmentalization will immediately become apparent. He'll say something like, "Well, it's because this is spirituality."
But that's no justification at all. It's just another way of saying that it's the part of his beliefs that he wants to believe despite the evidence.
PhlegmMaster
Banned
Stoney Mason said:
Oh, please. What the fuck do you want Dawkins to do, kidnap the morons and force them to watch his documentary the Clockwork Orange way?
The only (remotely) valid objection of this type that could be made about this kind of show is that the tone shouldn't be aggressive, which might have applied to Root of All Evil?, but certainly not to The Enemies of Reason. If anything, Dawkins is being too meek this time around.
Lucky Forward said:
Yes, but he'll go after quack medicine in the second part. I doubt the overall style will change.
PhlegmMaster
Banned
ItsInMyVeins said:
It's not "scary", it's direct and forthright. It means giving this kind of idiocy the exact amount of respect it deserves: None.
It's true that changing a person's mind is often done more easily if one is careful not to offend the person. So yes, this kind of wording might be a hindrance if my only objective was to convince superstitious people that some of their beliefs are nonsense, but fortunately I'm not that shortsighted. It's not the superstitions themselves I'm after, it's the whole mindset of irrationality I want gone. And the first step towards that end is to get rid of two dogmas:
First, that spiritual and religious beliefs deserve respect simply because they're spiritual and religious; second, that certainty about one's beliefs is necessarily to be equated with fundamentalism, intolerance, or other scare words.
Stoney Mason
Banned
PhlegmMaster said:
I wonder why some people believe atheists are assholes? I wonder...
typhonsentra
Banned
Tag
PhlegmMaster
Banned
Stoney Mason said:
In the case of faith-heads, because their fragile beliefs are being questioned and attacked. It's easier to be offended than to defend an undefensible belief.
In the case of other atheists, because they dislike the fact that the majority of the people they share this Earth with are deluded, so they end up promoting the idea that calling a spade a spade is shrill, mean, and offensive.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It pains me to agree with Stoney Mason on anything, but alas the day has come. This is nothing more than another masturbatory stroking of the atheist ego, or what we call in my delusional religious world "preaching to the choir". It'll appeal to college kids, GAF, atheists, etc, and that's it.
Calling people "dumb" is never the best way to gain an audience.
Calling people "dumb" is never the best way to gain an audience.
Stoney Mason
Banned
PhlegmMaster said:
Those are certainly two possible reasons...
PhlegmMaster
Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Except of course that Dawkins was exceptionally nice and polite to the idiots.
I'm curious; pick one widespread belief that you know is false. If you had to make a documentary to convince people of this, how would you proceed?
Actually, never mind. I'll start giving a shit about your opinion when you acknowledge the basic facts of biology.
- Status