He seemed to really struggle to come up with some sort of situation where scientific reasoning could lead to harm. His example was a pretty weak one.
I'm curious how Dawkins would respond, based on his statements regarding different species and their moral status, if it is more moral to kill one highly endangered ape or a thousand people (of which species there is no shortage). If it is better to kill the ape, even if it might lead to extinction, then why?
And if it is better to kill the humans, then congratulations, there is the danger of scientific reasoning.
Kevin said... I'm curious how Dawkins would respond, based on his statements regarding different species and their moral status, if it is more moral to kill one highly endangered ape or a thousand people (of which species there is no shortage). If it is better to kill the ape, even if it might lead to extinction, then why?
If one ape makes a difference, the species is already effectively extinct.
Time to throw out some red meat to the followers, was it, Victor? I, like Dawkins, have realised that science can indeed INFORM the debate on morality. The clip was a most low-key, sensible, logical and even-handed response to the question of how science can inform people on the issue of morality. I would say that many of the most recent Supreme Court decisions have all been largely informed by the sciences, such as Roe v. Wade [the appropriateness and timing of abortion], non-discrimination legislation protecting LGBTQ members [gay rights, same sex marriage] of the community, etc etc. The Court has gone well beyond, and largely discounted, the bulk of religious considerations and objections brought before the bar while concurrently seeking counsel and scientific advice in the health and medical fields (psychological, physiological, neurological, genetic etc) to properly found their decision-making.
Dawkins is on the right side of history here, no doubt about it, and the more we scientifically understand about us, the world, the universe, there is no question the influence of religious considerations will continue to shrink to the status of a peripheral bit player in defining the moral landscape into the future. It's called 'humanity growing up and maturing into adulthood'.
Time to throw out some red meat to the followers, was it, Victor?
You're just not a very pleasant person, are you? Shows that lack of religion helps nothing on a personal level, anyway.
I, like Dawkins, have realised that science can indeed INFORM the debate on morality.
What an accomplishment! Pretty sure every Christian who has ever thought about it would agree, since the natural world is involved in every action with a moral status. Not groundbreaking for little Dawkins.
Dawkins is on the right side of history here, no doubt about it
No such thing. What you consider enlightened, future generations will mock as ignorant. Atheism+ has already tossed Dawkins into the trashcan.
more we scientifically understand about us, the world, the universe, there is no question the influence of religious considerations will continue to shrink to the status of a peripheral bit player in defining the moral landscape into the future.
Religious consideration will continue to decline in the West (Christianity anyway), but all facts indicate that scientific reasoning is not what is supplanting it. And the new postmodern morality rejects science as an oppressive construct. You will be unpleasantly surprised by what replaces Christian thought. It won't resemble Richard Dawkins.
It's called 'humanity growing up and maturing into adulthood'.
Looks like humanity is growing into a psychotic nutjob of an adult.
"Religious consideration will continue to decline in the West (Christianity anyway), but all facts indicate that scientific reasoning is not what is supplanting it. And the new postmodern morality rejects science as an oppressive construct. You will be unpleasantly surprised by what replaces Christian thought. It won't resemble Richard Dawkins."
Just saying it doesn't make it so. Where's your evidence? Cite it. At least you admit that christian thought will be replaced. That is development of some sort I suppose. I certainly don't want it to resemble Dawkins. He's simply the messenger.
The rest of your commentary is just silly.
The difference between religion and science cannot be better expressed than in the following graphic: SEE HERE The universality of science as an explanatory framework about us, the world, the universe, is orders of magnitude far greater than any parochial, culture-bound edifice that religious belief purports to represent.
Can't refute it, so dismiss it. Typical anti-theist.
Which is why I'm not bothering answering the silly commentary you just offered. Atheists like you never offer anything intellectual, just boring propaganda and juvenile catch phrases. If you want to not be ignorant, feel free to do a Google search on what the new religious "nones" actually believe, and what postmodern thought thinks of science. Of course being educated will shake your propaganda up, so you won't do it.
Oh! Right! So according to you, the world map of today's religions (some 4,300 at last count not including the 41,000 variants of the christian assortment) is going to be replaced by a world map of incalculable 'New Age' religious variants into the future? Sorry. But pull the other leg. :)
9 comments:
He seemed to really struggle to come up with some sort of situation where scientific reasoning could lead to harm. His example was a pretty weak one.
I'm curious how Dawkins would respond, based on his statements regarding different species and their moral status, if it is more moral to kill one highly endangered ape or a thousand people (of which species there is no shortage). If it is better to kill the ape, even if it might lead to extinction, then why?
And if it is better to kill the humans, then congratulations, there is the danger of scientific reasoning.
I'm impressed by how little science there is in Dawkins' presentation.
He seems to think anti-abortionists are misguided absolutists.
I heard him say that there are anti-abortionists who are misguided absolutists, but not that it was a universal characteristic.
Kevin said...
I'm curious how Dawkins would respond, based on his statements regarding different species and their moral status, if it is more moral to kill one highly endangered ape or a thousand people (of which species there is no shortage). If it is better to kill the ape, even if it might lead to extinction, then why?
If one ape makes a difference, the species is already effectively extinct.
Time to throw out some red meat to the followers, was it, Victor?
I, like Dawkins, have realised that science can indeed INFORM the debate on morality. The clip was a most low-key, sensible, logical and even-handed response to the question of how science can inform people on the issue of morality. I would say that many of the most recent Supreme Court decisions have all been largely informed by the sciences, such as Roe v. Wade [the appropriateness and timing of abortion], non-discrimination legislation protecting LGBTQ members [gay rights, same sex marriage] of the community, etc etc. The Court has gone well beyond, and largely discounted, the bulk of religious considerations and objections brought before the bar while concurrently seeking counsel and scientific advice in the health and medical fields (psychological, physiological, neurological, genetic etc) to properly found their decision-making.
Dawkins is on the right side of history here, no doubt about it, and the more we scientifically understand about us, the world, the universe, there is no question the influence of religious considerations will continue to shrink to the status of a peripheral bit player in defining the moral landscape into the future. It's called 'humanity growing up and maturing into adulthood'.
Time to throw out some red meat to the followers, was it, Victor?
You're just not a very pleasant person, are you? Shows that lack of religion helps nothing on a personal level, anyway.
I, like Dawkins, have realised that science can indeed INFORM the debate on morality.
What an accomplishment! Pretty sure every Christian who has ever thought about it would agree, since the natural world is involved in every action with a moral status. Not groundbreaking for little Dawkins.
Dawkins is on the right side of history here, no doubt about it
No such thing. What you consider enlightened, future generations will mock as ignorant. Atheism+ has already tossed Dawkins into the trashcan.
more we scientifically understand about us, the world, the universe, there is no question the influence of religious considerations will continue to shrink to the status of a peripheral bit player in defining the moral landscape into the future.
Religious consideration will continue to decline in the West (Christianity anyway), but all facts indicate that scientific reasoning is not what is supplanting it. And the new postmodern morality rejects science as an oppressive construct. You will be unpleasantly surprised by what replaces Christian thought. It won't resemble Richard Dawkins.
It's called 'humanity growing up and maturing into adulthood'.
Looks like humanity is growing into a psychotic nutjob of an adult.
@ Kevin
"Religious consideration will continue to decline in the West (Christianity anyway), but all facts indicate that scientific reasoning is not what is supplanting it. And the new postmodern morality rejects science as an oppressive construct. You will be unpleasantly surprised by what replaces Christian thought. It won't resemble Richard Dawkins."
Just saying it doesn't make it so. Where's your evidence? Cite it.
At least you admit that christian thought will be replaced. That is development of some sort I suppose. I certainly don't want it to resemble Dawkins. He's simply the messenger.
The rest of your commentary is just silly.
The difference between religion and science cannot be better expressed than in the following graphic: SEE HERE
The universality of science as an explanatory framework about us, the world, the universe, is orders of magnitude far greater than any parochial, culture-bound edifice that religious belief purports to represent.
The rest of your commentary is just silly.
Can't refute it, so dismiss it. Typical anti-theist.
Which is why I'm not bothering answering the silly commentary you just offered. Atheists like you never offer anything intellectual, just boring propaganda and juvenile catch phrases. If you want to not be ignorant, feel free to do a Google search on what the new religious "nones" actually believe, and what postmodern thought thinks of science. Of course being educated will shake your propaganda up, so you won't do it.
You may have the last word. This is boring.
Oh! Right! So according to you, the world map of today's religions (some 4,300 at last count not including the 41,000 variants of the christian assortment) is going to be replaced by a world map of incalculable 'New Age' religious variants into the future?
Sorry. But pull the other leg. :)
Post a Comment