Science v Religion BBC Debate

[johnny crossan]

Last night's programme where the Chief Rabbi debated whether science and religion were incompatible with three atheist scientists including Richard Dawkins.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mqvmv/Rosh_Hashanah_Science_vs_Religion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _Religion/</a>

I think this topic deserves its own thread (unless a moderator thinks otherwise of course.)

My own take is that Dawkins appears to mellowing. I'll try to put it onto Youtube later.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiIaErxzGSE[/youtube]

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

As long as people debate respectfully then it's fine. I didn't watch it but will as the Chief Rabbi is by a head and shoulders the most articulate and charismatic religious leader in this country.

 

[Damocles]

Dawkins is a stupid, stupid man at times.

One of my major problems with him, and something that I have fallen into on occasion, is that he argues the case of science against religion by treating them as two equal subjects worthy of a platform together.

This is dumb, it legitimises religion by inference and creates the idea that there might be some actual debate about it.

It's like an astronomer debating on TV with an astrologer. Or a chemist with an alchemist. Or a doctor with a spiritual healer.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Dawkins is a stupid, stupid man at times.

One of my major problems with him, and something that I have fallen into on occasion, is that he argues the case of science against religion by treating them as two equal subjects worthy of a platform together.

This is dumb, it legitimises religion by inference and creates the idea that there might be some actual debate about it.

It's like an astronomer debating on TV with an astrologer. Or a chemist with an alchemist. Or a doctor with a spiritual healer.

Did you watch the Programme Damocles ? what was your take on it ?

 

[johnny crossan]

Dawkins is a stupid, stupid man at times.

One of my major problems with him, and something that I have fallen into on occasion, is that he argues the case of science against religion by treating them as two equal subjects worthy of a platform together.

This is dumb, it legitimises religion by inference and creates the idea that there might be some actual debate about it.

It's like an astronomer debating on TV with an astrologer. Or a chemist with an alchemist. Or a doctor with a spiritual healer.

the human race is not worthy of science lol

 

[denislawsbackheel]

by Randy Newman

Last night I saw Lester Maddox on a TV show
With some smart-ass New York Jew
And the Jew laughed at Lester Maddox
And the audience laughed at Lester Maddox too
Well, he may be a fool but he's our fool
If they think they're better than him they're wrong
So I went to the park and I took some paper along
And that's where I made this song


It is impossible to debate with any belief structure that only has faith as evidence.

 

[johnny crossan]

it is impossible to debate with any belief structure that only has faith as evidence.

Which belief structure would that be? Perhaps you can also explain your quoting anti-Jewish references in this context. Let's see if we can get a little debate going here.

 

[Aguero_Element]

It isn't a case of science vs religion tho is it, science is name for testin things.

Religion is nothing to do with testing or creating new technology, religion is a view on spiritual and views on life and creation, and humans in generally and there behaviours.

A sciencist can very easily be religious so hving this debate is probably a gloriois waste of time.

As. Fkn. Usual!


good bye

 

[tonea2003]

Dawkins is a stupid, stupid man at times.

One of my major problems with him, and something that I have fallen into on occasion, is that he argues the case of science against religion by treating them as two equal subjects worthy of a platform together.

This is dumb, it legitimises religion by inference and creates the idea that there might be some actual debate about it.

It's like an astronomer debating on TV with an astrologer. Or a chemist with an alchemist. Or a doctor with a spiritual healer.

do you not think he is doing that(rightly or wrongly) because religion is real in a as much that it exists as a movement here on earth whether or not the premise it is based on is flawed.
and is using science to show why the premise(in his opinion) is flawed.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Just watched it and it was very interesting. Perhaps the most interesting bit was when Sacks and Dawkins were discussing using stories or parables to get a point across. Sacks wouldn't actually come out and explicitly say he believes the story of Abraham & Isaac actually happened as described so it could be inferred he sees it as a parable, although he wouldn't admit that either.

Sacks also made the point that the Jewish religion encourages questioning but it doesn't encourage questioning the big picture, just the minutiae. He hada good point when he said that the story of Abraham gave us what we'd regard as a modern moral code, in an era when child sacrifice was considered normal.

And that's the point for me. You can separate science and morality in ways that doesn't make them mutually exclusive, as Susan Greenfield agreed but the fact is that plenty of religious people take their holy texts absolutely literally, instead of regarding them as a route to imposing what we'd regard as an enlightened moral code when no better way existed. So it's when they try to compete that the problems occur.

On the 5 Live phone in yesterday, when they were debating gay marriage, one caller phoned in to say homosexuality was classed as a sin in the bible & therefore gay marriage was explicitly wrong. When the presenter challenged her about her literal belief in the bible, she was quite open that she did believe it literally and that the earth was only about 6,000 years old. despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

So if people who were religious would accept that they're following a moral code based on a series of stories that have little basis in fact but provide an easy way of illustrating that code, then I'm OK with that. I accept that religion played a huge part in introducing and enforcing a moral code but you don't have to be religious to respect human rights or understand the concepts of humility & dignity.

 

[SWP's back]

Dawkins is a stupid, stupid man at times.

One of my major problems with him, and something that I have fallen into on occasion, is that he argues the case of science against religion by treating them as two equal subjects worthy of a platform together.

This is dumb, it legitimises religion by inference and creates the idea that there might be some actual debate about it.

It's like an astronomer debating on TV with an astrologer. Or a chemist with an alchemist. Or a doctor with a spiritual healer.

He ususally refuses debates with creationists but I can see why he agreed to talke with the Rabbit.

I thought the programme lacked depth and more of the talks, with less voice over and an hour long programme would have been more beneficial and less superficial.

Dawkins also made some very good points.<br /><br />-- Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:46 pm --<br /><br />

On the 5 Live phone in yesterday, when they were debating gay marriage, one caller phoned in to say homosexuality was classed as a sin in the bible & therefore gay marriage was explicitly wrong. When the presenter challenged her about her literal belief in the bible, she was quite open that she did believe it literally and that the earth was only about 6,000 years old. despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

This makes me sad about the fact that very person is allowed to have children and everyone gets an equal vote.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

I watched it and thought it a bit superficial if anything. I was expecting more from a debate between Dawkins and the Rabbi, but it appeared the brief was to have more of a conversation to find middle ground. I wasnt disappointed by it because it worked better than a more confrontational method but I didnt feel either man got their teeth into at all. Dawkins if anything went into it as if he was going to be more open minded than he has in the past.

 

[didactic]

On the 5 Live phone in yesterday, when they were debating gay marriage, one caller phoned in to say homosexuality was classed as a sin in the bible & therefore gay marriage was explicitly wrong. When the presenter challenged her about her literal belief in the bible, she was quite open that she did believe it literally and that the earth was only about 6,000 years old. despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

This makes me sad about the fact that very person is allowed to have children and everyone gets an equal vote.

But Sweep you are pro science so how does homosexuality support your belief? If as science sees it we are simply here to procreate and make sure the species continues then homosexuality surely goes against that. If they are not following the laws of science then they would be removed by natural selection. So how are this womans views so wrong?

Also if as you claim all religion is about control why is every single religion against homosexuality? These books were written before Aids and before the onslaught of STDs. Why would they all hold similar views regarding the practice?

 

[Skashion]

Wasted half-hour so far as I'm concerned.

 

[SWP's back]

On the 5 Live phone in yesterday, when they were debating gay marriage, one caller phoned in to say homosexuality was classed as a sin in the bible & therefore gay marriage was explicitly wrong. When the presenter challenged her about her literal belief in the bible, she was quite open that she did believe it literally and that the earth was only about 6,000 years old. despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

This makes me sad about the fact that very person is allowed to have children and everyone gets an equal vote.

But Sweep you are pro science so how does homosexuality support your belief? If as science sees it we are simply here to procreate and make sure the species continues then homosexuality surely goes against that. If they are not following the laws of science then they would be removed by natural selection. So how are this womans views so wrong?

What the fuck? That's tosh of the highest order even by your high standards.

How does homosexuality support my belief? Well it doesn't for a start, perhaps you worded it wrong?

The laws of science are the laws of nature. You will tend to find that homosexuals don't often procreate and as such, rarely tend to pass on their genes. But homosexuality is not hereditary so it's not really a huge problem for them.

How are the woman's views wrong? Well she is a bigot that is using a dusty old book and ignoring the mountains (and there literally are mountains which are made of sedimentary rock which she is ignoring) that prove the Earth to be older than 6,000 years (by an order of nearly a thousand).

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

On the 5 Live phone in yesterday, when they were debating gay marriage, one caller phoned in to say homosexuality was classed as a sin in the bible & therefore gay marriage was explicitly wrong. When the presenter challenged her about her literal belief in the bible, she was quite open that she did believe it literally and that the earth was only about 6,000 years old. despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

This makes me sad about the fact that very person is allowed to have children and everyone gets an equal vote.

But Sweep you are pro science so how does homosexuality support your belief? If as science sees it we are simply here to procreate...

No - it's religion that sees human sexuality as being purely for procreation.

It's quite clear that sexual practices such as homosexuality were quite acceptable in places like Ancient Egypt and the OT prohibited them.

 

[didactic]

This makes me sad about the fact that very person is allowed to have children and everyone gets an equal vote.

But Sweep you are pro science so how does homosexuality support your belief? If as science sees it we are simply here to procreate and make sure the species continues then homosexuality surely goes against that. If they are not following the laws of science then they would be removed by natural selection. So how are this womans views so wrong?

What the fuck? That's tosh of the highest order even by your high standards.

How does homosexuality support my belief? Well it doesn't for a start, perhaps you worded it wrong?

The laws of science are the laws of nature. You will tend to find that homosexuals don't often procreate and as such, rarely tend to pass on their genes. But homosexuality is not hereditary so it's not really a huge problem for them.

How are the woman's views wrong? Well she is a bigot that is using a dusty old book and ignoring the mountains (and there literally are mountains which are made of sedimentary rock which she is ignoring) that prove the Earth to be older than 6,000 years (by an order of nearly a thousand).

So quick to lash out even when you misunderstand something. I ASKED how does it support the scientific views hence why there was a question mark? I never said it supports your views or that you believe it does.

By the laws of natures a species has to reproduce for it to continue. If we are all here for the singular purpose of procreation are homosexuals a mutation as unless they use science they cannot reproduce?

She has simply refused to accept what is taught in classrooms as fact. There was a time it was taught that blacks were 3/5ths human. People believed this and it was accepted as truth. You take what scientists say as truth she does not. So both of you are accepting information taken from books to form opinions.

-- Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:32 pm --

This makes me sad about the fact that very person is allowed to have children and everyone gets an equal vote.

But Sweep you are pro science so how does homosexuality support your belief? If as science sees it we are simply here to procreate...

No - it's religion that sees human sexuality as being purely for procreation.

It's quite clear that sexual practices such as homosexuality were quite acceptable in places like Ancient Egypt and the OT prohibited them.

But why? Why were they prohibited?

What are sciences views on homosexuality then? Is there a cause as it in no way benefits us?

 

[SWP's back]

But Sweep you are pro science so how does homosexuality support your belief? If as science sees it we are simply here to procreate and make sure the species continues then homosexuality surely goes against that. If they are not following the laws of science then they would be removed by natural selection. So how are this womans views so wrong?

What the fuck? That's tosh of the highest order even by your high standards.

How does homosexuality support my belief? Well it doesn't for a start, perhaps you worded it wrong?

The laws of science are the laws of nature. You will tend to find that homosexuals don't often procreate and as such, rarely tend to pass on their genes. But homosexuality is not hereditary so it's not really a huge problem for them.

How are the woman's views wrong? Well she is a bigot that is using a dusty old book and ignoring the mountains (and there literally are mountains which are made of sedimentary rock which she is ignoring) that prove the Earth to be older than 6,000 years (by an order of nearly a thousand).

So quick to lash out even when you misunderstand something. I ASKED how does it support the scientific views hence why there was a question mark? I never said it supports your views or that you believe it does.

By the laws of natures a species has to reproduce for it to continue. If we are all here for the singular purpose of procreation are homosexuals a mutation as unless they use science they cannot reproduce?

She has simply refused to accept what is taught in classrooms as fact. There was a time it was taught that blacks were 3/5ths human. People believed this and it was accepted as truth. You take what scientists say as truth she does not. So both of you are accepting information taken from books to form opinions.

-- Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:32 pm --

But Sweep you are pro science so how does homosexuality support your belief? If as science sees it we are simply here to procreate...

No - it's religion that sees human sexuality as being purely for procreation.

It's quite clear that sexual practices such as homosexuality were quite acceptable in places like Ancient Egypt and the OT prohibited them.

But why? Why were they prohibited?

What are sciences views on homosexuality then? Is there a cause as it in no way benefits us?

I am not a biologist so wouldn't like to say whether or not it is a mutation any more than being left handed is. But it affects such a low percentage of the population that it is not a threat to the species. And science doesn't have "a view" on homosexuality, for you to even ask that question shows your ignorance of what science is.

She is not refusing to believe what she was taught in the class room, she is choosing to believe only what she was taught in Church.

The difference being that what is taught in the class room in terms of geology is based on so much evidence that you be unable to read it all in a lifetime.

She is a fucking idiot.

 

[Damocles]

There was a time it was taught that blacks were 3/5ths human. People believed this and it was accepted as truth

You are lying. Or an idiot. On four seperate occasions, I have shown you that this is unequivocally false. It's even the first result in Google.

Here it is for the fifth time. Perhaps this time you can remember it before slandering an entire generation

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise</a>

Misconception

According to a PBS article, the Three-Fifths Compromise is sometimes erroneously said to mean the founders believed blacks were only partial human beings (i.e. three-fifths of a person). The article also states the compromise had no relation to the individual worth of the black slave. [10]

 

[Deleted member 14625]

On the 5 Live phone in yesterday, when they were debating gay marriage, one caller phoned in to say homosexuality was classed as a sin in the bible & therefore gay marriage was explicitly wrong. When the presenter challenged her about her literal belief in the bible, she was quite open that she did believe it literally and that the earth was only about 6,000 years old. despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

This makes me sad about the fact that very person is allowed to have children and everyone gets an equal vote.

But Sweep you are pro science so how does homosexuality support your belief? If as science sees it we are simply here to procreate and make sure the species continues then homosexuality surely goes against that. If they are not following the laws of science then they would be removed by natural selection. So how are this womans views so wrong?

Also if as you claim all religion is about control why is every single religion against homosexuality? These books were written before Aids and before the onslaught of STDs. Why would they all hold similar views regarding the practice?

But humans have sex for fun as well as to procreate. The fun part of it has many levels of what that fun can involve. I'm into all sorts of kinky shit that I like to do or the girl to do during sex, much of it has nothing to do with procreation. Therefore homosexuality can fall into one of the layers of the sex onion too.