Thank you, Peter, for such an honest open conversation! Dawkins is a genuinely funny person when you give him a chance. I used his joke, about Anglican schools inoculating him as a child in a conversation with my woke loved one and she laughed, and it was great to hear her laugh again. Thanks for helping me work on becoming a better listener in the moments that matter most.
Science is not even close to afinal understanding of nature which is a Dawkins delusion.shared by most ontological reductionists. The Big Bang theory for instance is full of problems dark matter etc. Now we have to look at the age of the universe that's potentially different than than what it was claim to be for decades. I know about The Big Bang because I have a son who's a quantum physicist and a daughter who is a plasma physicist. So I hear that argument all the time. The other issue with evolutionary biology basically is the position that the brain has cease to evolve.
Perhaps it has and perhaps it hasn,'t but the fact is that our understanding of the universe it's obviously contingent upon the complexity of our brain should humble us,. Why then should we believe that today's scientific paradigm is complete in our understandings? I mentioned again the work of Thomas Kuhn .
so if man is a religious animal by default, Dawkins has wasted his life? why?
wouldn’t that mean he is closer to truth regardless of his animosity toward religion? isn’t it possible to be an atheist and still realize that humans are wired for religious belief..?
Your point about Dawkins is well made, Hollis, but the underlying problem here is that Dawkins (along with you and countless others) assume that religion is synonymous with "belief." This would mean that religion is a purely cognitive phenomenon and therefore that its doctrines can be compared effectively to the purely cognitive phenomenon of science. Religion cannot describe the natural order accurately, in short, and science can. Ergo, science is rational and religion irrational.
But at the core of religion is a non-cognitive experience, not cognitive beliefs or doctrines. Its primary forms of expression are neither rational nor irrational--theology and philosophy are secondary religious phenomena, both historically and developmentally--but non-rational. By the latter, I refer to the direct experience of holiness (or the sacred) in Judaism, Christianity and Islam or of enlightenment in Hinduism and Buddhism--or simply of mysticism in any tradition. Because this experience is ineffable, by definition, it cannot be described adequately in the intellectual genre of doctrine. It can best be described in the symbolic genres of myth, ritual, art, poetry and so forth.
And what those genres convey is not primitive science. Whatever the ostensible topic, they're about what it means to be human and therefore finite in the midst of cosmic infinity and eternity. Dawkins agrees with Carl Sagan that devotion to science is fostered most effectively by using it to cultivate the sense of wonder and joy. I would add only that this applies also to religion (not the arid caricature of it that Dawkins trivializes).
In short, I'd modify your final point slightly by arguing that humans are hard-wired for religious experience, not for religious belief. If there is a conflict between that and science, I don't know why that would be.
I’m a Christian myself and share your belief that we are hard wired for a religious experience. I guess I was trying to take Dawkins assumption to it’s logical end.
I haven't listened yet, but I agree with what you said, "Wouldn't that mean he is closer to truth?"
In fact, I was relieved to read your comment. My response to his supposition that he would have wasted his life was to say, human to human, "Wait! No! You wouldn't have wasted your life!" (I don't believe that anyone's life can be "in vain." Whatever we do or don't do, our choices get someone closer to the truth, or at least have the potential to do so.)
But it is his choice to come to that belief, that he has wasted his life.
I do believe that we are hard-wired for belief. Science is a belief.
Fascinating discussion! I’m enjoying it. Regarding transgender/transubstantiation, do you think that it is possible for someone to be trans and not be delusional? Or do you think that being trans, like believing in transubstantiation, always is and always will be delusion?
I’m not trying to trap you or ask a gotcha question, just curious.
In my opinion a person can suffer from Gender Dysphoria in the same sense that a person can suffer from Body Integrity Identity Disorder.
It's a mental illness, for which "gender affirming" medical care seems to help, so I support helping such individuals in this way.
But there's a wide gap between alleviating the real pain of a tiny minority, and the celebrations of the phenomena and the indoctrination of the public to believe in the nonsense that is Gender Ideology.
I don’t have a solution, but I do have some thoughts on your question on how to create a prophylactic to prevent an institution from succumbing to what's morally fashionable or any “new religion"? https://youtu.be/3MfBLPuwwdo?t=734 Perhaps the solution will simply be to undo what has only recently been done. We have a spectacular advantage in that when people believe they are on the “right side of history”, they do not mind admitting their methods and aims in print, because they believe history will judge them kindly. I suspect the next new religion will be the Omega Point, but don’t think the primary concern is what the potential new religion will be. I agree the primary focus should be on the phrase “succumbing to what’s morally fashionable”.
"Laws and regulations suited to country-specific conditions are among the most important instruments for transforming environment and development policies into action, not only through "command and control" methods, but also as a normative framework for economic planning and market instruments.”
AGENDA 21. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development. Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. Section 8.13.
I think a lot of us feel uneasy, not only due to the insanity of the ideas that are considered morally fashionable these days, but how quickly the culture and institutions are transitioning from one morally fashionable idea to another. How is that happening? Has it always been that way? If not, what changed? I’d like to suggest that it has not always been that way, that something has changed, and we can identify the root cause. James Lindsay talks a lot about Agenda 2030, which makes him a modern-day hero in my opinion.
He also mentions Agenda 21, a document from which I can draw supporting evidence that America has not always had the current institutional problem. Agenda 21 clearly defines what our “problem” was and how they intended to “fix” us.
“Yet, although the volume of legal texts in this field is steadily increasing, much of the law-making in many countries seems to be ad hoc and piecemeal, or has not been endowed with the necessary institutional machinery and authority for enforcement and timely adjustment."
AGENDA 21. Section 8.13.
What is being adjusted and why does it need timely enforcement? I urge everyone to contemplate on that for a moment. Perhaps the answer is clear to see in the next section of Agenda 21.
“While there is continuous need for law improvement in all countries, many developing countries have been affected by shortcomings of laws and regulations. To effectively integrate environment and development in the policies and practices of each country, it is essential to develop and implement integrated, enforceable and effective laws and regulations that are based upon sound social, ecological, economic and scientific principles. It is equally critical to develop workable programmes to review and enforce compliance with the laws, regulations and standards that are adopted.“
AGENDA 21. Section 8.14.
When the standards change, we don’t want pesky checks and balances getting in the way of timely adjustment. We need to endow countries with institutional machinery and authority for enforcement, of whatever the future standard will be, in a timely manner.
I think a good place to begin looking for clues as to what the mechanism of “timely adjustment” turned out to be in the USA, is the department of education, specifically ERIC.
“After new Science Standards are adopted, their implementation in the classroom tends to be rather swift. In general, widely publicized lawsuits convicting school districts for not implementing the teaching of evolution as outlined in Science Standards contribute towards a fast implementation of such reforms.”
Evolution vs. Creationism in the Classroom: The Lasting Effects of Science Education.
Section 2.4 The Implementation of Reforms of Science Standards. Pg 11.
"Governments should improve the collection of information on target groups and target areas in order to facilitate the design of focused programmes and activities, consistent with the target-group needs and aspirations. Evaluation of such programmes should be gender-specific, since women are a particularly disadvantaged group."
AGENDA 21. Section 3.9.
"To assess, review, revise and implement, where appropriate, curricula and other educational material, with a view to promoting the dissemination to both men and women of gender-relevant knowledge”
AGENDA 21. Section 24.2. GLOBAL ACTION FOR WOMEN TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
"All countries are encouraged to endorse the recommendations of the Jomtien Conference and strive to ensure its Framework for Action. This would encompass the preparation of national strategies and actions for meeting basic learning needs, universalizing access and promoting equity, broadening the means and scope of education, developing a supporting policy context, mobilizing resources and strengthening international cooperation to redress existing economic, social and gender disparities which interfere with these aims."
AGENDA 21. Section 36.5.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12
For a comprehensive explanation of the ubiquity of religion throughout the history of humanity, I recommend a book which, for some inexplicable reason, has never gained the traction it deserves. I discovered it in 2016 while listening to atheist podcasts. It's called THE ILLUSION OF GOD'S PRESENCE: THE BIOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF SPIRITUAL LONGING, by computational biologist, John C. Wathey, PhD. Frankly I'm shocked that Dawkins, a biologist, is not familiar with it. It's a massive, dense, and ingenious book, filled with philosophy, sociology and of course, biology. Nothing is left to speculation; evidence abounds. It's extraordinary.
On another matter, Peter, I beg of you, please, stop trying to tie your brain in knots by referring to men as "she" in order to be polite. Forcing yourself to lie in order to be kind is what transgender ideologues want us to do. The problem is that when we convince ourselves that lies are true (i.e., that people are literally the sex they "identify" with), we lose our capacity for objective thought and we no longer know what reality is. It's a corruption, the purpose of which is to make us dumb and manipulable.
At the risk of sounding redundant, please allow me to confirm that Lia Thomas is a man. In English, we refer to men by using the pronouns HE and HIM. As you yourself pointed out, this fact is well known by the female swimmers who now change their clothes in the bathroom in order to avoid the gaze of their 6'4" teammate with a hard-on who's leering at them in the locker room.
Confusion is a common symptom that people express when dealing with transgender ideology. But this confusion is unnecessary. Whenever we start to feel confused, it's a sure sign that we are trying to convince ourselves of a lie.
Thank you, Peter, for such an honest open conversation! Dawkins is a genuinely funny person when you give him a chance. I used his joke, about Anglican schools inoculating him as a child in a conversation with my woke loved one and she laughed, and it was great to hear her laugh again. Thanks for helping me work on becoming a better listener in the moments that matter most.
Science is not even close to afinal understanding of nature which is a Dawkins delusion.shared by most ontological reductionists. The Big Bang theory for instance is full of problems dark matter etc. Now we have to look at the age of the universe that's potentially different than than what it was claim to be for decades. I know about The Big Bang because I have a son who's a quantum physicist and a daughter who is a plasma physicist. So I hear that argument all the time. The other issue with evolutionary biology basically is the position that the brain has cease to evolve.
Perhaps it has and perhaps it hasn,'t but the fact is that our understanding of the universe it's obviously contingent upon the complexity of our brain should humble us,. Why then should we believe that today's scientific paradigm is complete in our understandings? I mentioned again the work of Thomas Kuhn .
I have faith in science
so if man is a religious animal by default, Dawkins has wasted his life? why?
wouldn’t that mean he is closer to truth regardless of his animosity toward religion? isn’t it possible to be an atheist and still realize that humans are wired for religious belief..?
Your point about Dawkins is well made, Hollis, but the underlying problem here is that Dawkins (along with you and countless others) assume that religion is synonymous with "belief." This would mean that religion is a purely cognitive phenomenon and therefore that its doctrines can be compared effectively to the purely cognitive phenomenon of science. Religion cannot describe the natural order accurately, in short, and science can. Ergo, science is rational and religion irrational.
But at the core of religion is a non-cognitive experience, not cognitive beliefs or doctrines. Its primary forms of expression are neither rational nor irrational--theology and philosophy are secondary religious phenomena, both historically and developmentally--but non-rational. By the latter, I refer to the direct experience of holiness (or the sacred) in Judaism, Christianity and Islam or of enlightenment in Hinduism and Buddhism--or simply of mysticism in any tradition. Because this experience is ineffable, by definition, it cannot be described adequately in the intellectual genre of doctrine. It can best be described in the symbolic genres of myth, ritual, art, poetry and so forth.
And what those genres convey is not primitive science. Whatever the ostensible topic, they're about what it means to be human and therefore finite in the midst of cosmic infinity and eternity. Dawkins agrees with Carl Sagan that devotion to science is fostered most effectively by using it to cultivate the sense of wonder and joy. I would add only that this applies also to religion (not the arid caricature of it that Dawkins trivializes).
In short, I'd modify your final point slightly by arguing that humans are hard-wired for religious experience, not for religious belief. If there is a conflict between that and science, I don't know why that would be.
good point and I agree with you.
I’m a Christian myself and share your belief that we are hard wired for a religious experience. I guess I was trying to take Dawkins assumption to it’s logical end.
perhaps I failed tho...
I haven't listened yet, but I agree with what you said, "Wouldn't that mean he is closer to truth?"
In fact, I was relieved to read your comment. My response to his supposition that he would have wasted his life was to say, human to human, "Wait! No! You wouldn't have wasted your life!" (I don't believe that anyone's life can be "in vain." Whatever we do or don't do, our choices get someone closer to the truth, or at least have the potential to do so.)
But it is his choice to come to that belief, that he has wasted his life.
I do believe that we are hard-wired for belief. Science is a belief.
Dawkins didn’t waste his life; he will be remembered as the man who discovered the meme
Fascinating discussion! I’m enjoying it. Regarding transgender/transubstantiation, do you think that it is possible for someone to be trans and not be delusional? Or do you think that being trans, like believing in transubstantiation, always is and always will be delusion?
I’m not trying to trap you or ask a gotcha question, just curious.
In my opinion a person can suffer from Gender Dysphoria in the same sense that a person can suffer from Body Integrity Identity Disorder.
It's a mental illness, for which "gender affirming" medical care seems to help, so I support helping such individuals in this way.
But there's a wide gap between alleviating the real pain of a tiny minority, and the celebrations of the phenomena and the indoctrination of the public to believe in the nonsense that is Gender Ideology.
This question is directed to Peter, but would also be interested to hear from Professor Dawkins!
I don’t have a solution, but I do have some thoughts on your question on how to create a prophylactic to prevent an institution from succumbing to what's morally fashionable or any “new religion"? https://youtu.be/3MfBLPuwwdo?t=734 Perhaps the solution will simply be to undo what has only recently been done. We have a spectacular advantage in that when people believe they are on the “right side of history”, they do not mind admitting their methods and aims in print, because they believe history will judge them kindly. I suspect the next new religion will be the Omega Point, but don’t think the primary concern is what the potential new religion will be. I agree the primary focus should be on the phrase “succumbing to what’s morally fashionable”.
"Laws and regulations suited to country-specific conditions are among the most important instruments for transforming environment and development policies into action, not only through "command and control" methods, but also as a normative framework for economic planning and market instruments.”
AGENDA 21. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development. Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. Section 8.13.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
I think a lot of us feel uneasy, not only due to the insanity of the ideas that are considered morally fashionable these days, but how quickly the culture and institutions are transitioning from one morally fashionable idea to another. How is that happening? Has it always been that way? If not, what changed? I’d like to suggest that it has not always been that way, that something has changed, and we can identify the root cause. James Lindsay talks a lot about Agenda 2030, which makes him a modern-day hero in my opinion.
Exposing the Sustainable Development Goals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW2tkK52U-o
He also mentions Agenda 21, a document from which I can draw supporting evidence that America has not always had the current institutional problem. Agenda 21 clearly defines what our “problem” was and how they intended to “fix” us.
“Yet, although the volume of legal texts in this field is steadily increasing, much of the law-making in many countries seems to be ad hoc and piecemeal, or has not been endowed with the necessary institutional machinery and authority for enforcement and timely adjustment."
AGENDA 21. Section 8.13.
What is being adjusted and why does it need timely enforcement? I urge everyone to contemplate on that for a moment. Perhaps the answer is clear to see in the next section of Agenda 21.
“While there is continuous need for law improvement in all countries, many developing countries have been affected by shortcomings of laws and regulations. To effectively integrate environment and development in the policies and practices of each country, it is essential to develop and implement integrated, enforceable and effective laws and regulations that are based upon sound social, ecological, economic and scientific principles. It is equally critical to develop workable programmes to review and enforce compliance with the laws, regulations and standards that are adopted.“
AGENDA 21. Section 8.14.
When the standards change, we don’t want pesky checks and balances getting in the way of timely adjustment. We need to endow countries with institutional machinery and authority for enforcement, of whatever the future standard will be, in a timely manner.
I think a good place to begin looking for clues as to what the mechanism of “timely adjustment” turned out to be in the USA, is the department of education, specifically ERIC.
“After new Science Standards are adopted, their implementation in the classroom tends to be rather swift. In general, widely publicized lawsuits convicting school districts for not implementing the teaching of evolution as outlined in Science Standards contribute towards a fast implementation of such reforms.”
Evolution vs. Creationism in the Classroom: The Lasting Effects of Science Education.
Section 2.4 The Implementation of Reforms of Science Standards. Pg 11.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED625599
The US Department of Education was formed in 1979.
Ngram chart of United Nations buzzwords: https://ibb.co/9N1mq22
ERIC - ED227098 - Excellence and Equity in American Education., 1982-Nov
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED227098
"Governments should improve the collection of information on target groups and target areas in order to facilitate the design of focused programmes and activities, consistent with the target-group needs and aspirations. Evaluation of such programmes should be gender-specific, since women are a particularly disadvantaged group."
AGENDA 21. Section 3.9.
"To assess, review, revise and implement, where appropriate, curricula and other educational material, with a view to promoting the dissemination to both men and women of gender-relevant knowledge”
AGENDA 21. Section 24.2. GLOBAL ACTION FOR WOMEN TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
"All countries are encouraged to endorse the recommendations of the Jomtien Conference and strive to ensure its Framework for Action. This would encompass the preparation of national strategies and actions for meeting basic learning needs, universalizing access and promoting equity, broadening the means and scope of education, developing a supporting policy context, mobilizing resources and strengthening international cooperation to redress existing economic, social and gender disparities which interfere with these aims."
AGENDA 21. Section 36.5.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12
For a comprehensive explanation of the ubiquity of religion throughout the history of humanity, I recommend a book which, for some inexplicable reason, has never gained the traction it deserves. I discovered it in 2016 while listening to atheist podcasts. It's called THE ILLUSION OF GOD'S PRESENCE: THE BIOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF SPIRITUAL LONGING, by computational biologist, John C. Wathey, PhD. Frankly I'm shocked that Dawkins, a biologist, is not familiar with it. It's a massive, dense, and ingenious book, filled with philosophy, sociology and of course, biology. Nothing is left to speculation; evidence abounds. It's extraordinary.
On another matter, Peter, I beg of you, please, stop trying to tie your brain in knots by referring to men as "she" in order to be polite. Forcing yourself to lie in order to be kind is what transgender ideologues want us to do. The problem is that when we convince ourselves that lies are true (i.e., that people are literally the sex they "identify" with), we lose our capacity for objective thought and we no longer know what reality is. It's a corruption, the purpose of which is to make us dumb and manipulable.
At the risk of sounding redundant, please allow me to confirm that Lia Thomas is a man. In English, we refer to men by using the pronouns HE and HIM. As you yourself pointed out, this fact is well known by the female swimmers who now change their clothes in the bathroom in order to avoid the gaze of their 6'4" teammate with a hard-on who's leering at them in the locker room.
Confusion is a common symptom that people express when dealing with transgender ideology. But this confusion is unnecessary. Whenever we start to feel confused, it's a sure sign that we are trying to convince ourselves of a lie.