That man Dawkins

Was it good?

I see there are still complaints elsewhere about some of us arguing about religion. Sigh. We're allowed to! No-one is forced to read this thread . Lil's Bar doesn't appeal to me much so, guess what, I don't go there. So easy!

No, I didn't think it was very good. The Rabbi tried to get some controversy going but the three scientists were extremely polite and would not be drawn into criticising believers. He seemed to overlook the fact that science is still in its infancy, so of course it does not have all the answers, but at least it is asking the questions.
He completely contradicted himself about a parent's right to indoctrinate their children.
He seemed to think that one bit of research showing that believers (he didn't state which religion) were charitable proved that what they believed was true.
He said that religion had not threatened science - try telling that to Galileo and the people who were 'converted' by the Inquisition!
He dodged a bit when RD asked him outright if he believed everything in the bible actually happened, falling back on the line that stories can be used to tell a truth. Really?
I would say the score was Scientists 3, Rabbi 0.

What Greatnan said! It was quite boring and I found Rabbi Sacks talked past the scientists he was supposed to be interviewing, and avoided their counter-question about his belief in events described in the scriptures. His question 'do you tell your children stories?' could have any number of meanings and answers, and could have been usefully explored, but he didn't take it further. Frustrating. I stayed up to watch it, too

Thanks for the reviews.

I am an atheist, and just don't understand how any one can really believe that there is a heaven waiting for them when they die.
How ever, Every one is entitled to their own opinion,. My eldest son is a Christian, I am quite happy with that, indeed I wish I had his faith.
I can shout my corner if I have to, but surely your beliefs are not for shouting.
One of the loveliest men I ever met was the cook bearer we had when I was a child, growing up in , what was then British India, I loved him, more than I did my parents at the time, We would sit for hours on the cook house steps, and he would tell me stories from the Koran. A wonderful religion.
I thought of them as stories, as I do when reading the bible, yes, I have.
Let people believe in what they want, and let us respect their beliefs, I am sure we can learn from them. Beth

If we all had your attitude, Beth, our world would be great! Love your reminiscence about the cook and the Koran.

I try to be fine about other peoples beliefs, and usually I am. Then someone gets all holier-than-thou, or causes misery of others on religious grounds, or acts as if their beliefs are the only ones possible, and my claws start to unfurl and steam comes out of my ears......

Not all beliefs are worthy of respect. Not sure all people are either. I've never felt the need to respect hooligans who set fire to embassies, for instance. Actually, I think it's morally wrong to put up with evil beliefs and evil actions that result from them.

Does anyone respect Hitler's beliefs? Or Pol Pot's? Or the people who blew up the Twin Towers on 11 September 2001?

Sometimes, it's right To stand up and be counted.

Should say 'those of the people who blew up...' (their beliefs)

Not that one respects the holders of such beliefs either, when they abuse the rest of us.

In short, saying one should respect all beliefs is politically correct garbage – i.e. incorrect.

By the way, do all those people who say we should respect all beliefs respect That Man Dawkins' beliefs? Just asking. Because if they did, they wouldn't feel the need to keep asking him to shut up – beliefs worthy of respect are worth listening to.

I respect everyone's right to hold a belief. I do not accept that any belief should not be open to challenge / debate / discussion.

And I do not accept that anyone has a right to impose their beliefs on anyone else.

And I think that whatever the belief, no one has the right to act on that belief if those actions impact in any way on the rights or freedom of expression of others.

Did anybody else watch the programme?
I think many of us have said that we accept anybody's right to believe anything they choose, no matter how incredible their beliefs seem to us, as long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on others through legislation, or their beliefs lead to practices that harm others.
I strongly object to any religion that does not recognise gender equality, so that means most of the great world religions. 'Equal but different' is a cop out.

Jonathan Sacks has just done 'Thought for the Day' in which he discussed the recent discovery that what had at first been called 'junk DNA' was actually vital to life. He suggested that science and religion are not in opposition and that his view is that the more we learn about life, the universe and everything, the more we realise the grandeur of God. Way to go, Jonny!

I agree with your post entirely, MiceElf.

I would add that I don't call talking about your beliefs in an adult forum – or going on lecture tours to talk about your beliefs to other adults who don't have to attend, or writing books about your beliefs which nobody has to read unless they choose to, or making other media appearances to press home your point.... I don't call any of that imposing your beliefs on others. Just mentioning that as I sometimes get the feeling that some people think all that is imposing. No. It's talking. And people who disagree can put forward their views too.

Free speech and freely.

Hre is a link to the R4 debate between Dawkins and Sacks

Bags, I wasn't suggesting that writing books or appearing on any media is imposing beliefs. Don't be too sensitive!

The imposition of belief is when there are sanctions imposed on those who express an differing view.

Interesting that you use the term 'beliefs', Bags. Yes, I think that's what they are. I think Dawky might take issue with that, though, since it is the irrationality of religious belief that upsets him and the provability of scientific theory that makes it superior. If it's provable, it isn't a 'belief', is it?

Yes, it's still a belief, lily, but one based on evidence rather than faith. There's a thread somewhere on GN (I think!) where someone posted a list, or a link to a list, of what atheists believe. Being an atheist doesn't mean you have no beliefs, only that you have no beliefs about gods – well, one believes that there are stories and myths about gods, obviously, because there's plenty of evidence for that , but one believes that the stories are fiction rather than truth... until, should it ever happen, evidence corroborates the stories, in which case, one has reason to believe them, based on the evidence. It's very simple really to be an atheist. You look at the reasons for believing something, or not, and base your beliefs on that. If the evidence changes, your belief changes too. Works the same way as science, which, whatever you may hear to the contrary, is never totally 'settled', but simply improves with time, and more evidence.

Quite, MiceElf. And I didn't suggest that you made that suggestion either. I simply added an observation of my own to your list that I had already agreed with. Don't be so sensitive !

I can understand why you thought so though, Elf. I separated the comments in my post, but I'll try to be even clearer next time

Sorry, but I really did think that the phrase "I would add" made it clear that this was my addition and not someone else's, nor that someone else suggested it. Hey ho.

BTW, I agree with your last sentence too: "The imposition of belief is when there are sanctions imposed on those who express an differing view."

Good lass!

I fully accept that your repetition of the word 'impose' did not refer back to my use of it in my original comment. It just seemed like it and I wanted to make my position precisely clear.

We're quits on that then, Elf

Pax vobiscum

Bravo MiceElf and Bags. An interesting exchange of opinions conducted with vigour and without rancour. I hesitate to join in, as I was enjoying your dscussion.

I, too, cherish the simplicitly of atheism. Believing there might be a god presented me with so many questions that I found it impossible to continue listening to what I experienced as 'magic' and when I learned as a child that magicians were illusionists, my remaining beliefs about religion fell away.