Watchmakers, Darwin and Why Are We Here?

[larsen_huw]

This one's probably mainly for the Uk E-budoka here, but anyone feel free to chip in.

Last night, that bastion of late night porn and straight-to-video movies, Channel 5, screened what looked like it would be a very interesting programme.

Richard Dawkins was going to present a program which would answer the question "Why are we here?".

I only know of Richard Dawkins through Tony's (and others) citing of his work in defense of their athiest arguements.

The bulk of the programme was quite good, it slowly de-bunked many of the arguements put forward by the creationist group, pushing the pro-Darwin stance. Even talked his way out of the "why do humans seem to have stopped naturally selecting" corner ... so far, so good.

Then in the final five minutes he basically said that we're here because we evolved a way to not need natural selection, which to me didn't seem to answer the 'why' question. It seemed a hugely unsatisfactory ending to what had been a good build up.

The last five minutes of the program also appeared to have been quite heavily edited, as if Richard had waffled on for too long, and they needed to shorten his conclusion.

What did anyone else who saw it think?

Could someone who's familiar with Mr. (Prof? Dr? sorry, a title wasn't given) Dawkins work please explain what his answer actually is? Thanks.

[Dex]

30 minutes is just not long enough to try to explain these subjects.

Years ago I read The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, and in these books Dawkins takes a long time to explain what he is trying to get across. (Which is basically advanced science to an 'ignorant' public).

His explanation on the development of the eye and lung left me astounded. He certainly has a better way of words than other notables such as Hawkings.

However I feel that in last night's programme he failed to get his point across. I also was unsatisfied with the seemingly hasty ending. This only strengthens my opinion that such detailed and massive subjects cannot be communicated in such a short time.

(I hope this thread is not taken as an opportunity to start a religion v science argument.)

[larsen_huw]

Originally posted by Dex
...
(I hope this thread is not taken as an opportunity to start a religion v science argument.)

Seconded! :D

And on the subject of the programme, it's good to see subjects such as these getting any airtime in a schedule dominated my property makeover and reality tv shows! :)

Half and hour may be too short ... but it's better than nothing.

[John Lindsey]

As someone whose degree is in biology, I love this kind of talk.

BTW, have any of you read Stephen Jay Gould's books?

[Robinson]

Originally posted by John Lindsey
As someone whose degree is in biology, I love this kind of talk.

BTW, have any of you read Stephen Jay Gould's books?

As someone whose degree is originally in geology, I have read some of his work.

[Vapour]

Evolution may answer how we got here. It will not answer why, because the question presume that evolution has a purpose which is not the case.

If you are theist, yes, you make this assumption which could lead to one of teleological argument of the proof of the existence of god which has been discredited for a while now.

For your question, the answer is that there is no answer. To realise that may be the real liberation.

[joe yang]

Since will never answer why and philosophy is stupid, but religion is wacky!

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Vapour
Evolution may answer how we got here. It will not answer why, because the question presume that evolution has a purpose which is not the case.

If you are theist, yes, you make this assumption which could lead to one of teleological argument of the proof of the existence of god which has been discredited for a while now.

For your question, the answer is that there is no answer. To realise that may be the real liberation.
There is no "why", Yoji. That's the whole point of the Blind Watchmaker argument. There is no long-term goal to evolution; the idea that humans are here for some "purpose" is just anthropocentric arrogance. We are not the "crown of creation" (for we weren't created; we evolved), and we are not here for some purpose, other than to pass on our genes to the next generation. Selection pressure has led to the rise of apes intelligent enough to question their origins (homo sapiens); there is no long-term goal involved.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by larsen_huw
Then in the final five minutes he basically said that we're here because we evolved a way to not need natural selection, which to me didn't seem to answer the 'why' question. It seemed a hugely unsatisfactory ending to what had been a good build up.
The last five minutes of the program also appeared to have been quite heavily edited, as if Richard had waffled on for too long, and they needed to shorten his conclusion.
What did anyone else who saw it think?
Could someone who's familiar with Mr. (Prof? Dr? sorry, a title wasn't given) Dawkins work please explain what his answer actually is? Thanks.
To answer your last question first, Huw, he's Professor Dawkins: The Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. (Simonyi is a Hungarian emigre who was on the ground floor at the founding of Microsoft and now is mega-rich as a result; he spends his money and time endowing good causes like this one.)
As to the meat of your post: there is no "why". The whole point of the watchmaker being blind is that there is no long-term goal to evolution. Selection pressure ensures that only the fittest (i.e., the best adapted to their environment, and thus most likely to make it to sexual maturity and breed a new generation that will also inherit their superior survival traits) pass on their genes, which over time results in the losers in this unequal struggle dying out. There is no long-term goal for humanity, no "destiny".
As to why humanity has evolved to no longer need natural selection, it's because we have taken control over our own enviornment. Say, for example, that Neanderthals (our ancestors!) with more body hair survived the harsh Northern European winters better than those with sparse body hair. The hirsute Neanderthals thus lived to breed a new generation, who inherited the characteristic of hirsuteness which better prepared them to face the harsh winters. Today, however, we have central heating, so we have created an artifical environment in our homes that negates the advantage of being hirsute. We wear warm clothes (note that we are the only animals that do wear clothes), and use a googleplex (lovely word, that; sorry, couldn't resist!) of other techniques to overcome the pressures of natural selection. Put simply, although humans, as with all other creatures, evolved to adapt to our environment, now we change the environment to better suit us. Thus, as Professor Dawkins says, we have overcome the need for natural selection. To put it another way, whereas once natural selection controlled us, we now control it.
As to the ending of the show, whilst I didn't see it (bit too far to receive Channel 5 here), bear in mind that the editor and director won't have been scientists, and the editing could have been sloppy merely because the TV crew didn't understand what they were editing; hence the poor job. Or, if you prefer conspiracy theories, the programme was deliberately edited to make Dawkins look foolish by a TV editor who's a Young Earth Creationist, Biblical literalist, and Xian fundamentalist. And, before you laugh, read what actually happened (http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/crexpose.htm) to Richard Dawkins on one such occasion.
In all likelihood, however, the editing was rushed at the end purely because, as you say, it's well-nigh impossible to fit such a complex argument into 30 minutes--and in reality, less than that, as you have to subtract the time required for commercials from the total programme time.
However, it's good to see Channel 5 broadcast something worthwhile for a change. Last time I looked, it was all tits, bums, and celeb gossip. Does this mean that a fundamental makeover for the station is at hand? Perhaps they've evolving to better survive in the cutthroat world of broadcasting! ;)
Best,

[Dex]

Channel 5 have recently been criticized for their programme content. Therein may lie the answer.

OTOH, Rupert Murdoch is expected to be trying to buy the channel....maybe they are trying to scare him off ;)

[n2shotokai]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Or, if you prefer conspiracy theories, the programme was deliberately edited to make Dawkins look foolish by a TV editor who's a Young Earth Creationist, Biblical literalist, and Xian fundamentalist.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[larsen_huw]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
...
As to the meat of your post: there is no "why".
...

Then why present a program called "Why are we here"?

He actually said at one point that Darwin, as well as providing us with the "how", also provides us with the "why" ... yet never really explains the "why".

As for the "why" being passing on superior genes ... surely that's outdated now! :)

As we can evolve our environment to suit us, rather than evolve to suit our environment, there is no need to pass our superior genes on. We might as well clone ourselves and turn sex into a sport! :D


Originally posted by Kimpatsu
...
However, it's good to see Channel 5 broadcast something worthwhile for a change. Last time I looked, it was all tits, bums, and celeb gossip. Does this mean that a fundamental makeover for the station is at hand? Perhaps they've evolving to better survive in the cutthroat world of broadcasting! ;)
Best,

Definately. They've had some very good programmes on this week, Stephen Hawkins on big bang/creation, other people on alien life and genetics ... i definately think they're going for an interlectual makeover. Hopefully this might push the other channels into giving prime time slots (weeknights, about 7:30ish) to more interlectual programmes.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by n2shotokai
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Why are you laughing, Steve? Are you denying the truth of this article? (http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/crexpose.htm)

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by larsen_huw
Then why present a program called "Why are we here"?
Well, that's hyperbole, because people assume there must be a "why", even though it isn't so. Kee preading for the explanation.
Originally posted by larsen_huw
He actually said at one point that Darwin, as well as providing us with the "how", also provides us with the "why" ... yet never really explains the "why".
But there IS no "why"! That's the whole point Dawkins was trying to get across. Or, if you prefer. the sum total of the purpose of human existence is to pass on our genes to a new generation. We are NOT here because of some higher power wanting us to fulfill a purpose (cosmic design) to which we are only partly privy.
Originally posted by larsen_huw
As for the "why" being passing on superior genes ... surely that's outdated now! :)
What do you mean by that?
I'll repeat: there is no long-term goal to natural selection. That we (you and me, as opposed to the almost infinite other possibilities that could have evolved, but didn't) exist is because we are, in effect, an elite; we are the descendents of a line of people in which every one lived to adulthood and achieved at least one successful heterosexual copulation. The goal of your DNA is to replicate; thus, when you have children, you are complying with your genetic imperative. That's all. There is still no "higher purpose".
Originally posted by larsen_huw
As we can evolve our environment to suit us, rather than evolve to suit our environment, there is no need to pass our superior genes on. We might as well clone ourselves and turn sex into a sport! :D
Haven't we done exactly that with contraception? Every time you use a condom, you turn sex into sport! And, although we can change our environment to better suit us, the process is still not perfect (which is why you still feel cold in winter). Better to say that what we have at the moment is a greater symbiosis between the pressure of natural selection and our abilities to change our enviornment to better suit us.
Originally posted by larsen_huw
Definately. They've had some very good programmes on this week, Stephen Hawkins on big bang/creation, other people on alien life and genetics ... i definately think they're going for an interlectual makeover. Hopefully this might push the other channels into giving prime time slots (weeknights, about 7:30ish) to more interlectual programmes.
Ah, now that has got to be the most interesting "evolution" (sic) of all! ;)

[Jack B]

Stephen Jay Gould adhered to a new characterization of evolution called "punctuated equilibrium" because it fits the data. There are long spells of evolutionary inactivity when populations and environments are stable. The actual evolutionary periods are due to massive die-offs caused by environmental change or other factors. Life recovers but there are innumerable niches created in the food chain and rapid change (on the order of a million years or so) occurs in species, as miniscule exceptional percentages of various species selectively survive.

As Carl Sagan pointed out, evolution is not directional. The fact that we are a product of that process does not mean we are the "culmination", just that we are dominant within the scope of our surroundings. Ants might disagree, for instance.

[kage110]

I have just ordered 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'The Selfish Gene' after reading this thread! Damkins should pay you some of his royalties, Huw.:)

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jack B
Stephen Jay Gould adhered to a new characterization of evolution called "punctuated equilibrium" because it fits the data. There are long spells of evolutionary inactivity when populations and environments are stable. The actual evolutionary periods are due to massive die-offs caused by environmental change or other factors. Life recovers but there are innumerable niches created in the food chain and rapid change (on the order of a million years or so) occurs in species, as miniscule exceptional percentages of various species selectively survive.
Actually, Jack, punctuated equilibrium doesn't fit the facts so well. PE was more part of Gould's never-ending quest to "reconcile" (sic) science and religion. In The Blind Watchmaker, (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393315703/qid=1073693856//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/104-1883600-7879163?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) Dawkins devotes a whole chapter to "puncturing punctuated equilibrium".
Best,

[n2shotokai]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Why are you laughing, Steve? Are you denying the truth of this article? (http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/crexpose.htm) You are joking right? Skeptics.com! Conspiracy theory! To deny infers some truth, that is just paranoid horse pucky or just a lame attempt at credibility through ad hominem.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by n2shotokai
You are joking right? Skeptics.com! Conspiracy theory! To deny infers some truth, that is just paranoid horse pucky or just a lame attempt at credibility through ad hominem.
What a load of rubbish! You really are a piece of work, Steve. You've denied that these events have happened before. Do you really think that Dawkins made this up? You also denied that Bush senior said atheists weren't citizens. You cherry pick and disregard all events that paint your precious theists in a bad light. Well, I've got news for you: these events did indeed happen. Get used to it.
And you wonder why I'm so frustrated with your nonsense? You deny facts all the time!

[n2shotokai]

Tony, in all honesty you have on several occasions raised my curiosity about said "facts". Such as Bush saying he felt as though he was called to be Prez and wipe out the heathens. I have tried to corroborate these statements through neutral parties and have yet been able to do so. Do I get frustrated with you because you continue to post these statements? Not hardly.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by n2shotokai
Tony, in all honesty you have on several occasions raised my curiosity about said "facts". Such as Bush saying he felt as though he was called to be Prez and wipe out the heathens. I have tried to corroborate these statements through neutral parties and have yet been able to do so. Do I get frustrated with you because you continue to post these statements? Not hardly.
You're looking in the wrong place.
The fact that you disblieve these statements is indicative of your state of mind, according to which rogues like Bush senior and "Keziah" (AIG) can't be villains, because they're theists. These events happened. They are well documented and I have already supplied links to their details. Do you really think they are made up? But it does go to show just how far theists like yourself will live in denial. :rolleyes:

[yamatodamashii]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
But there IS no "why"! That's the whole point Dawkins was trying to get across. Or, if you prefer. the sum total of the purpose of human existence is to pass on our genes to a new generation.

I'll repeat: there is no long-term goal to natural selection. That we (you and me, as opposed to the almost infinite other possibilities that could have evolved, but didn't) exist is because we are, in effect, an elite; we are the descendents of a line of people in which every one lived to adulthood and achieved at least one successful heterosexual copulation. The goal of your DNA is to replicate; thus, when you have children, you are complying with your genetic imperative. That's all. There is still no "higher purpose".


Great! I'll start work on legislation to release all of the people currently in jail for robbing convenience stores to feed their kids--they're only fulfilling the purpose of their existence, after all.

By the way, I notice that you've marked heterosexuality as "elite"...

[yamatodamashii]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
You're looking in the wrong place.

Thanks for clarifying! And we should look where?

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

The fact that you disblieve these statements is indicative of your state of mind, according to which rogues like Bush senior and "Keziah" (AIG) can't be villains, because they're theists.

Well, *I* hardly think that; I can think of quite a few very devout villains in world history. But I also don't think that they're villains just because they *are* theists--so I'm afraid you'll have to provide evidence to convince me.

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

These events happened. They are well documented and I have already supplied links to their details. Do you really think they are made up? But it does go to show just how far theists like yourself will live in denial. :rolleyes:
I'm late in getting here. Could you provide them again? It doesn't really matter, after all, whether we think that they are made up. Burden of proof is on you.

[n2shotokai]

Originally posted by yamatodamashii
Thanks for clarifying! And we should look where?
Well at skeptic.com and secular.com of course. That is why I specified NEUTRAL PARTIES :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Read that as a "double" eye roll Tony :D

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by yamatodamashii
Great! I'll start work on legislation to release all of the people currently in jail for robbing convenience stores to feed their kids--they're only fulfilling the purpose of their existence, after all.
Wilful misunderstanding. The purpose of nature is to survive, but that doesn't mean we have to follow that diktat all the time. we can overcome our biological programming. Again, Dawkins has written at length on this subject. After all, I'm restraining my natural impulse to poison your coffee... ;)
Originally posted by yamatodamashii
By the way, I notice that you've marked heterosexuality as "elite"...
Huh? :confused:

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by yamatodamashii
Thanks for clarifying! And we should look where?
Try here (http://www.secularism.org.uk/newspress/americanatheistsaug03t.htm) and here. (http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/crexpose.htm)
Originally posted by yamatodamashii
Well, *I* hardly think that; I can think of quite a few very devout villains in world history. But I also don't think that they're villains just because they *are* theists--so I'm afraid you'll have to provide evidence to convince me.

These acts were committed because they are theists; in the Bush case, he insults atheists by calling us non-citizens, and in the Dawkins video case, the video was recut to make it appear Dawkins couldn't answer the question. Both of these were down to promote the viewpoint that atheists are inherentlyu worth less than theists. They were, if you like "theistic crimes", or "theistic insults".Originally posted by yamatodamashii
I'm late in getting here. Could you provide them again? It doesn't really matter, after all, whether we think that they are made up. Burden of proof is on you.
The links recounting the incidents are above. Alternatively, you could e-mail Dawkins and Sherman directly. I don't quite know what you expect me to "prove", except that the AIG video (in Dawkins case) can be ordered by mail from Answers in Genesis, and Sherman can supply the transcript of the Bush affair.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by n2shotokai
Well at skeptic.com and secular.com of course. That is why I specified NEUTRAL PARTIES :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Read that as a "double" eye roll Tony :D
Why would we make up something like this? Of course the NSS and Web Infidels have the best recoords on the subject; we the the victims of the insult. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[n2shotokai]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
we the the victims of the insult. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Poor baby, I'll give you a hug when I get to Japan :D

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by n2shotokai
Poor baby, I'll give you a hug when I get to Japan :D
I'd rather you buy the beers instead... :toast:

[Iain]

So what about Kissinger? Stalin? Neither of them were particularly religious (unless you're counting secular personality cults as theistic religions now), but they were (are) two of the biggest shytes of recent history...

People do nasty things because they can. Sometimes they use God as an excuse, sometimes they use capitalism, sometimes they use communism, and most of the time they use 'national security'.

Power is in its most rudimentary form the ability to act. Where there is a concentration of power, historically we see a concentration of injustice. Before politics separated itself from the broader human sphere as a distinct form of collective organization, coercive power rested within two institutions; landed nobility and the church. If these two institutions controlled the bulk of the power, they were by default the most prolific sources of social injustice.

Unlike blaming nastyness on religion, this theory is pretty much iron-clad, spans the length and breadth of history, and has a markedly low incidence of error. Churches have come and gone without killing anyone, governments, nations, and despots rarely do.

If you want to talk about cherry picking, Tony, how about all those harmless theists you ignore for the sake of demonizing the few bad ones. You seem to forget that the bulk of the people that get stepped on are Christians too.

Collective power exercised for personal gain is the source of evil, not religion. You seem to ascibe a lot of horrible things to a non-existant entity, Tony.

[yamatodamashii]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Try here (http://www.secularism.org.uk/newspress/americanatheistsaug03t.htm) and here. (http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/crexpose.htm)

Thank you. Although I would hope to find some corroborating neutral sources, especially since, having read through the first article before posting this, I have found some questionable information regarding subjects I *can* verify independantly.

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

These acts were committed because they are theists; in the Bush case, he insults atheists by calling us non-citizens, and in the Dawkins video case, the video was recut to make it appear Dawkins couldn't answer the question. Both of these were down to promote the viewpoint that atheists are inherentlyu worth less than theists. They were, if you like "theistic crimes", or "theistic insults".
The links recounting the incidents are above. Alternatively, you could e-mail Dawkins and Sherman directly. I don't quite know what you expect me to "prove", except that the AIG video (in Dawkins case) can be ordered by mail from Answers in Genesis, and Sherman can supply the transcript of the Bush affair.
According to the author of the first article--with whom I will concur, if the story is accurate--the insults were issued because Bush is a *bigot*. The fact that he is a theist is irrelevant, except as an identifier of which groups his bigotry may be targeted upon. There are any number of theists, myself among them, who have no prejudice against atheists at all. Your statement is nothing but a slap in the face to us--an act of bigotry on your own part.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Iain
So what about Kissinger? Stalin? Neither of them were particularly religious (unless you're counting secular personality cults as theistic religions now), but they were (are) two of the biggest shytes of recent history...
As opposed to theists like Hitler? What's your point? I think you've missed mine: That many evils are committed by theists in the name of their god, whereas no one has ever committed evil in the name of atheism.
Originally posted by Iain
Collective power exercised for personal gain is the source of evil, not religion. You seem to ascibe a lot of horrible things to a non-existant entity, Tony.
Wrong. The Inquisition was committed in the name of religion. So were the Crusades. Just because gods don't exist doesn't stop people committing atrocities in her name.

[yamatodamashii]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
whereas no one has ever committed evil in the name of atheism.

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/anti_rel.html

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Wrong. The Inquisition was committed in the name of religion. So were the Crusades. Just because gods don't exist doesn't stop people committing atrocities in her name.
The Inquisition and the Crusades were both financially motivated. Religious appeal was simply a tool. South African Apartheid invoked both religion *and* science as justification.

[Iain]

Stalin brainwashed, killed, and relocated millions in the name of his athiest personality cult, as did Mao. 'National Security' was the source of innumerable injustices over the course of the Cold War on both sides of the idelogical divide. Tamerlane slaughtered hundreds of thousands simply because he could. What about contemporary tribal warfare in Africa -which is conducted mainly due to racist or tribalist tendencies with little or no religious underpinnings? I'm not trying to excuse the institution of the Church, but the existence of gross injustice committed based upon secular ideology is irrefutable, and will, I believe, become ever more prevalent as the temporal and psychological authority of religions across the world continues to wane. This is not because the church restrained unjustice, but because the language and currency of power is ever shifting towards the secular realm. Of course, this is entirely from a western perspective (other cultures are a completely different kettle of fish). National Will, Security, and overblown secular ideology at large are just as big a culprits as organized religion; moreso now than ever.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Iain
Stalin brainwashed, killed, and relocated millions in the name of his athiest personality cult, as did Mao. 'National Security' was the source of innumerable injustices over the course of the Cold War on both sides of the idelogical divide. Tamerlane slaughtered hundreds of thousands simply because he could. What about contemporary tribal warfare in Africa -which is conducted mainly due to racist or tribalist tendencies with little or no religious underpinnings? I'm not trying to excuse the institution of the Church, but the existence of gross injustice committed based upon secular ideology is irrefutable, and will, I believe, become ever more prevalent as the temporal and psychological authority of religions across the world continues to wane. This is not because the church restrained unjustice, but because the language and currency of power is ever shifting towards the secular realm. Of course, this is entirely from a western perspective (other cultures are a completely different kettle of fish). National Will, Security, and overblown secular ideology at large are just as big a culprits as organized religion; moreso now than ever.
Yo miss the point completely, Iain; whilst Mao and Stalin killed millions, they didn't do so in the name of atheism. They did it in the name of Communism. Their atheism is incidental to that. BTW, Mao still paid homage to ancient Chinese spirits on occasion, though whether that was to curry favour with the largely superstitious peasants is unclear. As to increasing prevelance of gross injustice with the increase of secularism, who are you kidding? The Holocaust was committed by Catholics, and the wars in Central Africa and Bosnia are religiously motivated, as is Northern Ireland. And even if that were not so, that still doesn't prove that god exists. But don't you dare lay the blame for the current state of the world at the atheists' door. By and large, atheists are more intellectual and more compassionate than theists, according to polls conducted with the United States. Your attempts to mandate religion is in itself a gross abuse of human rights, and you are not operating using facts. Try reading Sagan, Dawkins, or Barker (Dan, not Clive!), and then come back here. Please?

[n2shotokai]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
The Holocaust was committed by Catholics, Didn't that have something to do with Germans and a guy with a funny mustache who hated Jews?

[yamatodamashii]

Yes. Catholicism was never popular in Germany. Hitler himself was raised Lutheran, but broke away from Christianity early in his career; joining the National Socialist movement (a decidedly atheist organization which became the platform for the Third Reich) and eventually referring to Christianity as "that invention of the Jews" (probably, considering Hitler's actions, intended as a perjorative).

Hitler, and the Reich itself, was obsessed with occultism--both pagan and Judeo-Christian. The Nazi swastika, for example, is an inversion and reversal of a sun symbol common to both Druidic and Hindu currents. Hitler himself was a top-level adept of the Thule Society.

http://www.livingstonemusic.net/hitlerandtheoccult.htm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0814730604/qid=1073879263//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-9853792-6263062?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[Iain]

Hitlers Christianity was just as incidental to the holocaust as Stalins atheism to his mass murder.

What I am trying to do is link secular and non-secular ideology to a broader pattern of social injustice. What you are doing is feigning ignorance of this clear link to try and demonize religious ideology to a greater extent than secular ideology. A great many crimes were committed in the name of God, but a great many were also committed in the name of secular ideals of exactly the same ilk. Stalin committed crimes in the 'name' of atheism, just as Hitler committed crimes in the 'name' of God -and the state, and neo-paganism, and anything else he deemed a reasonable outlet for his paranoia.

I'm not trying to blame atheists for anything, what I'm trying to do is get you to acknowlege that secular ideology is just as big a culprit as non-secular ideology. As long as people concieve of 'self' and 'other' and use that conception to justify the mistreatment of their fellow human beings, we will have pain and suffering; God or no God. It's all the finger-pointing and carping at one another that starts these problems in the first place.

And I wasn't suggesting that the decline of religion was linked to an increase in social justice: I was asserting that the locus of power will always be the locus of social injustice. If the Church ceases to be the locus of power and that mantle moves to a secular authority -which it is- then we will see an increase in social injustice being committed by that new authority.

What you're saying is that if we were all atheists, there'd be less social injustice. What I'm saying is if everyone was an atheist, we would simply come up with secular justifications for mistreating our fellow human beings. I'm also asserting that this is true because it's been happening since the enlightenment period.

I'm not carping on Atheism because it doesn't deal with broader issues of how we relate socially with one another -although you seem quite comfortable asserting your moral and intellectual superiority, which makes me wonder. What I am saying is that atheism is not the cure-all for the worlds problems. Just because it doesn't deal with questions of social relations doesn't make those problems disappear. People simply look to the new forms of social interaction that grow out of secular society and use them to find reasons to exploit one another.

The increased compassion and intellectual rigour of atheists can be chalked up to the fact that to learn what they did, they had to pick up a book and read something. A religious person can go their entire life without thinking outside the box; an atheist cannot. Due to current social circumstance, an atheist must look for material, read it, draw conclusions, and engage in divergent thinking. This is not necessarily true of people who adhere to the dominant religion of a society. People who take the time to get educated, think on things, and generally engage in self examination are always more compassionate and intellectual. I'm sure you also know that better educated people are in general more compassionate and intelligent (statistics also prove this). To become an atheist, you had to educate yourself. In educating yourself you became a better person. Big surprise.

Again, I'm not blaming atheism for anything, I'm asserting that secular ideology is just as much to blame as non-secular.

[yamatodamashii]

Originally posted by Iain
As long as people concieve of 'self' and 'other' and use that conception to justify the mistreatment of their fellow human beings, we will have pain and suffering; God or no God.

Not meaning to take away from the original post; I just thought that that particular sentence bore repeating.

[larsen_huw]

Originally posted by Dex
...
(I hope this thread is not taken as an opportunity to start a religion v science argument.)


Originally posted by larsen_huw
Seconded!
...


**cough, cough, splutter, splutter**

There's enough threads out there for you thiests and athiests to argue on until you're blue in the face, go bump 'Ask The Athiest' or similar.

[Dex]

I was just going to say that lol :D

[larsen_huw]

Originally posted by Dex
I was just going to say that lol :D

great fools think alike ....

or something like that! :D