Sabastious: I hear you. It's just that on many of these topics, my opinion boils down to, "that doesn't make any sense, to me". This, coupled with the FACT that I've been wrong SO MANY times in the past, I realize that just because it doesn't make any sense, today, doesn't mean it won't make sense after further investigation. In the meantime, obviously, we must all operate with a limited amount of certainity on various topics, or we're paralyzed.
A few Dawkins quotes to think about.
by AK - Jeff 328 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
sabastious
Sabastious: I hear you. It's just that on many of these topics, my opinion boils down to, "that doesn't make any sense, to me".
Remember the opinion you are reading is from another human being. How often do you attempt to make sense of it by explaining to that human why it doesn't make sense to you?
-Sab
-
leavingwt
Since this thread is about Dawkins quotes, here is what Dawkins said about Harris' book, 'The Moral Landscape'.
"I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me. Moral philosophers, too, will find their world exhilaratingly turned upside down, as they discover a need to learn some neuroscience. As for religion, and the preposterous idea that we need God to be good, nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris."
— Richard Dawkins
-
botchtowersociety
If expanded to a global size, an observation of the dance and interplay of uncountable organic molecules culminating in the intricate workings of the myriads of cells of the human body would be held by some here as evidence of horrible suffering and violence. There is continuous change and destruction of individual elements, yet without this, there is no transformation and growth for the organism as a whole.
-
botchtowersociety
Since this thread is about Dawkins quotes, here is what Dawkins said about Harris' book, 'The Moral Landscape'.
Should I consider this to be a "strong, positive assertion"?
-
PSacramento
Sabastious: I hear you. It's just that on many of these topics, my opinion boils down to, "that doesn't make any sense, to me". This, coupled with the FACT that I've been wrong SO MANY times in the past, I realize that just because it doesn't make any sense, today, doesn't mean it won't make sense after further investigation. In the meantime, obviously, we must all operate with a limited amount of certainity on various topics, or we're paralyzed.
This is the most honest way at looking at ANYTHING bro, very well said.
But this:
"I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me. Moral philosophers, too, will find their world exhilaratingly turned upside down, as they discover a need to learn some neuroscience. As for religion, and the preposterous idea that we need God to be good, nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris."
— Richard Dawkins
Is quite simply a circle jerk.
-
sabastious
"I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me. Moral philosophers, too, will find their world exhilaratingly turned upside down, as they discover a need to learn some neuroscience. As for religion, and the preposterous idea that we need God to be good, nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris." — Richard Dawkins
A nifty way of saying scientific morals actually surpass it's predecessors moral code (religious values). Just because we can get more specific with morals (using nueroscience) doesn't mean they are superior to any other moral contemporary or ancient.
It could be said that convoluting morality is a detriment to society. "Don't fix it if it ain't broken" and certainly no need to attack the morality of the past by assuming a superiour position and backing it up with facts. We exist because of the past and should live in harmony with it.
Science was awarded a crown not to long ago and it might be going to some people's heads.
-Sab
-
cofty
It could be dynamic without the earthquakesand tsunamis - no problem for a god who gave a shit about his creatures - cofty
Show me how you would do it, and show your work.
If your god is omnipotent it is a piece of cake. We know exactly how plate tectonics work and how they get stuck and the pressure builds up unitl it jerks loose causing an earthquake and tsunami if its under the sea.
Imagine an alternative world where theists say "isn't it marvelous how tectonic plates glide over or past one another due to the naturally occuring graphite that lubricates the leading edge of the plates . What an amazing evidence of a loving god"
Far more impressive than "its all our fault for living too close to plate boundaries"
-
leavingwt
Science was awarded a crown not to long ago and it might be going to some people's heads.
"Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works" -- Michael Shermer
-
leavingwt
Should I consider this to be a "strong, positive assertion"?
botchtower: Yes, by Dawkins.