NYAS has Richard Dawkins speaking on his book, The God Delusion http://www.nyas.org/podcasts/snc/dawkins.mp3
While I basically agree with Dawkins, I think attempts to rapidly exterminate religion are more dangerous and wrong than simply trying to understand why people need it and dealing with problems as they arise. Religion is the foundation of many a personality or belief system. It's simply unfair and IMO, unwise to pretend they don't have the right to be themselves, or that they should agree with that which is ultimately also faith-based.
He is not saying people have no right to be themselves. Religion enjoys the freedom of which it is expected upon every citizen to become religious. Whereas in many occassions or in many countries you are not free to be an atheist. Most people aren't really aware of the alternative of non-belief is actually acceptable in other occassions. In fact I think atheists in America are the outcasts of society, and George Bush sr even suggested (allegedly) that atheists are not even American citizens since the nation of America is one, under God.
Or to hold opposing opinions including other faiths. Some humans seem to handle dissent rather badly. This is why I beleive that faith should be a purely personal matter kept seperate from affairs of state. Certainly has no place in science based discussions aside perhaps from philosophy.
I hope one day that humanity will put away these religions of blind faith in a grand diety(s) and put that faith into ourselves, each other, and humanity.
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists? Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me. Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists? Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church? Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
Me too. Do you think Dawkins advocated such a thing? I'm halfway though the book, and so far it's very good.
I was speaking more to posters (in regards to their comments) than Dawkins, since as far as I know he doesn't post here.
It is interesting that Dawkins when attacking traditional religions, fails to point out that Scientific industrialism has also not been wholly a blessing to mankind. Look at the development and mass production of weapons and the tremendous loss of life they produced in World War I and World War II. Donella H. Meadows, Professor of Environmental Studies at Dartmouth College, said in her article "Quality of Life" about "scientific industrialism", "The founders of scientific industrialism, in order to prevail over the doctrinaire irrationality of the Middle Ages, emphasized specialization, reductionism, logic, and quantification. In doing so they restored a much needed balance and then went too far. For the sake of objectivity they condemned intuition, holism, spirituality, everything unmeasurable and indefinable. That condemnation has lasted for centuries and has shaped us all. ... it is clear that the industrial society that has dominated the world over that period is obsessed not with Quality but with quantity." In another part of the same article she says, "People may be properly nourished and fully employed, but if they are granted no personal dignity and are trained to no standard of character or excellence, if there is no Quality at the core of their lives, they will either withdraw sullenly into themselves or pursue material extravagance and sensual stimulation as shallow substitutes for Quality." So does Dawkins see atheism and the Scientific method as the big ideas that will not only reverse the excesses created by scientific industrialisation but also prevent further excesses by future generations? And does he believe that atheism is sufficient to provide all men with the "personal dignity" and "standard of character" necessary to prevent the sullen withdrawal or pursuit of material extravagance and sensual stimulation as substitutes for this Quality? And since scientists are the ones known for their atheism and agnosticism more than any other group, why doesn't their superior rational outlook prevent them from developing and improving on weapons on mass destruction when they know, better than anyone else what their effects will be and that such weapons will result chiefly in the deaths of civilians and noncombatants? PS I haven't read the God Delusion yet, just the reviews and this entry in wiki on which my questions are based.
So the loss of life in todays society due to advanced weapons somehow outnumbers those of men with spears and swords in ancient times? Because a military force remains important to a country. Obviously it would be great if no country needed a military, but such a day is far away in the future. It is up to the politicians to use their reasoning, something that can not be said about those who happen to be deeply religious.
Incorrect. What is unfortunate is that so many politicians are deeply religious. Therefore not rational, therefore they use those weapons for their idialogical BS.
You don't believe artillery, missiles, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons are capable of killing more people than swords? Actually Dawkins does not believe that politicians are truly as religious as they portray themselves. According to him, they feign religiosity to garner votes/favor from the people. And they still need scientists to design, develop and make bigger and better, more lethal weapons.
To be a successful politician, you must possess a certain degree of rationality. A politician's ideological bullshit is designed to play on the irrational, fanatic behaviors of potential supporters; this is the primary reason why I find election years to be insufferable. Stay away from the television! EDIT: I see sam beat me to it.
Absolutely, and without question. As an example, there are more people living in China today, than inhabited the entire world approximately 150 years ago. I'm fairly certain that I heard a statistic somewhere that said, of the 80 billion or so human beings that have ever lived, something like 70-80% of them have lived in the 20th century. Maybe that's slightly off, but you get the point. Modern weaponry has killed far more people than ancient weaponry. There is simply no contest.
There are also increased incidents of putting women and children on the battleline since these scientific weapons require little training - they can lay down fire power reasonably enough - If they go to the museums with swords shields and maces they could hardly even lift them up much less wield them with heroism and determination
I take it you've never wielded a decent sword/shield/mace reproduction. All it takes is a proper education and dedication. I'm talking about women, of course. Children are a different story. If by children you mean teenagers, then they have only been considered children since very recent times. On the whole, of course, you're right. I don't necessarily consider this a bad thing, since the purpose of simplifying the use of weaponry is to allow for the greater utilization of manpower.
Jaster Mereel i have picked up a double handed sword - hardly the sort of thing I can imagine most women using it takes ALOT od training and dedication - this is why imperial japan strived for years to keep gunpowder out of the country Unfortunately in a situation of industrial war the main strategy is resupply - its not clear how it leads to a greater utilization of manpower
Sure they could. A sword is not that heavy. World War II Japan had both women and children ready to fight with said heroism and determination, to the last drop of blood, with medieval weapons if necessary. From history class I recall video clips of rows of Japanese children lined up across a street, performing rather mean-looking synchronized cuts with wooden swords that are very similar in weight and mass distribution to the real thing. (I happen to have personally handled both as well.) But just a few men in a B-29 could have taken out them all and their entire city with the drop of a single bomb. And that's another characteristic of modern warfare: If you are unfortunate to find yourself on the business end of a modern weapon, your chances of surviving are far lower than in ancient combat, where if defeated in face-to-face combat with your adversary, you may be spared your life and turned into a slave. EDIT: I see Jaster beat me to it.
Your average two-handed sword, unless you're talking about monstrous processional swords, only weighs between 2-4 pounds. Not heavy at all. Yea, but anyone can learn to use them. Resupply of personnel to the front, where the killing takes place. You know, the main focus of warfare?
