The Enemies of Reason by Richard Dawkins

[Sahara]

Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason (part 1)

Was an excellent show I thought, maybe not as meaningful to me as the god delusion because I have been a skeptic on these things for so long anyway, but still an interesting documentary.

Thoughts?

 

[JivinJeffJones]

The title of this thread is perhaps a little misleading.

 

[Geoff]

Did you see what happened to the superstitious pigeons yet? I haven't watched it (its on my sky+) but I'm intrigued about the pigeons you mentioned...!

-Geoff

 

[Sahara]

The title of this thread is perhaps a little misleading.

Oh right lol, it is, but anyone who actually clciks on the link will know what I meant after.

Did you see what happened to the superstitious pigeons yet? I haven't watched it (its on my sky+) but I'm intrigued about the pigeons you mentioned...!

-Geoff

Not had a chance yet to rewatch it, I will do later today. Dawkins was working off of this theory I believe:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/

 

[darlets]

I'll watch it soon.

Dennet Brown did one call Messiah. Here's two of the parts. (7-8 minutes each)


YouTube - Derren Brown- Instant Conversion

YouTube - Derren Brown - The Dream Machine (Messiah)

 

[Mycroft]

Oh right lol, it is, but anyone who actually clciks on the link will know what I meant after.

I dunno, I know some people who would agree with that assessment of Dawkins.

(Love a man who can preach though; glad to see the skill isn't entirely monopolized by rightists.)

 

[Sahara]

I'll watch it soon.

Dennet Brown did one call Messiah. Here's two of the parts. (7-8 minutes each)


YouTube - Derren Brown- Instant Conversion

YouTube - Derren Brown - The Dream Machine (Messiah)

Thanks darlets , I missed that one and have been wanting to watch it ever since my friend told me about it.

I dunno, I know some people who would agree with that assessment of Dawkins.

(Love a man who can preach though; glad to see the skill isn't entirely monopolized by rightists.)

Lol I know people who agree with that statement too, but then I think they would be missing the point of what reson means, Dawkins is not the enemy of reason, I find he is just pushing for people to use theirs.

Just to use ones reason to look at something in a rational manner?

 

[Sahara]

I have fixed the title though lol forgot this was a board full of pedantics.

 

[Mycroft]

I have fixed the title though lol forgot this was a board full of pedantics.

A board full of pedants.

 

[Sahara]

A board full of pedants.

Lol damn it.

 

[NocturnalSun]

"There are two ways of looking at the world: through faith and superstition or the rigors of logic, observation and evidence -- through reason."

False dichotomy. So much for reason.

 

[Sahara]

False dichotomy. So much for reason.

Laymans terms how so?

 

[NocturnalSun]

Laymans terms how so?

It isn't just those two options.

 

[Sahara]

It isn't just those two options.

Oh right, I see what you mean, but what other ways are there of seeing the world?

(Talk slow for the extra F in me lol)

 

[reason]

I like the original title.

Richard Dawkins: the Enemy of Reason

"Not for the first time, reason is in need of a defence from its supposed friends, as much as its enemies."

 

[Mycroft]

"There are two ways of looking at the world: through faith and superstition or the rigors of logic, observation and evidence -- through reason."

False dichotomy. So much for reason.

Some dichotomies are real and, indeed, at odds.

 

[Oberon]

Some dichotomies are real and, indeed, at odds.

Faith and reason may be at odds...but are they mutually exclusive?

 

[NocturnalSun]

By nature, NT's tend to be very reason-oriented, but they do not require observation to prove truth. (iNtuitive) Just one example.

edit: And I am kinda offended that faith and superstition are lumped together as if BOTH are necessarily irrational and opposing to observation. What a mockery! My faith denies what we observe, what we have evidence for? That is EXACTLY what Dawkins pushes. All religion is the same in that it opposes evidence and logic, and that it is rooted in human superstition. That's BS, and why it is a "false dichotomy."

 

[Mycroft]

By nature, NT's tend to be very reason-oriented, but they do not require observation to prove truth. (iNtuitive) Just one example.

edit: And I am kinda offended that faith and superstition are lumped together as if BOTH are necessarily irrational and opposing to observation. What a mockery! My faith denies what we observe, what we have evidence for? That is EXACTLY what Dawkins pushes. All religion is the same in that it opposes evidence and logic, and that it is rooted in human superstition. That's BS, and why it is a "false dichotomy."

That's true, there are certainly religions which are not at odds with the findings of science. (Most forms of Buddhism, for example.) In that sense it is a false dichotomy.

 

[Oberon]

That's true, there are certainly religions which are not at odds with the findings of science.

That the Abrahamic religions (to pick an example) might be considered in opposition to science would have come as a considerable surprise to, say, Isaac Newton.

I suspect this is another aspect of the zeitgeist we can ascribe to Darwin...or, more properly, the succession of people who have misinterpreted his work.