This House Believes Religion Has No Place In The 21st Century | The Cambridge Union
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- The debate is also available on iTunes at the Cambridge Union Society channel: itunes.apple.c...
Follow the Cambridge Union Society on twitter:
/ cambridgeunion
Is Religion compatible with 21st Century life? How can it be made to fit with modern laws and values? Even if it might be compatible, does it actually do more harm than good?
PROPOSITION:
01:54 Andrew Copson - Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association and former director of the European Humanist Federation.
29:42 Prof. Richard Dawkins - A distinguished evoultionary biologist and ardent critic of religion, Dawkins is also Vice-President of the British Humanist Association and author of The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene.
1:10:30 Arif Ahmed - Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge since October 2011.
OPPOSITION:
13:33 Rowan Williams - Outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury and now the Master of Magdalene College, Rowan Williams studied Theology at Cambridge and has written inumerable books on the subject of Christianity.
42:28 Prof. Tariq Ramadan - Known as 'The Muslim Martin Luther', Ramadan is a renowned writer and Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Oxford. He is also President of the European Muslim Network.
1:22:25 Douglas Murray - Associate Director of the Henry Jackson Society and founder of the Centre for Social Cohesion, Murray is also a commentator on issues of religion, immigration and extremism.
Result:
Ayes: 138
Noes: 324
The Motion failed to pass
Douglas Murray gave the speech that won the debate. Great video.
Dr Ahmed's speech was the clearest, made the best points and also was the most entertaining.
Douglas Murray - Religion provides comfort whether if its true or not.
The debate's first speaker eloquently and succinctly compressed the correct answer to the motion - Bravo!
I thought the final speaker was mostly right and it was probably his views that swayed the motion. However, where he said religion has provided valuable input on debate on political matters, I would counter his argument by saying that it's actually people, individuals, that provide that input, not religion.
I think this format is awesome.
1- you get to say a question as it is fresh in your mind, and everyone else's.
2- because you get to say "ON THAT POINT, SIR!"; darn i wish i went to Cambridge
Nice work cameraman. **CLAP** **CLAP** **CLAP** right into the mic. I really needed that. Thanks.
+Heath Kitchen That's not the cameraman, that's the moderator who's microphone is on while he claps.
It was merely an itinerant bull seal looking for a mate.
well it's not the cameraman's fault, the speaker should have known not to clap next to his clip on mic.
Massive respect for Mr Copson. I've not heard of him before this debate (and so far have only seen his opening gambit) but he's eloquent, concise and spot-on with the points he makes.
I look forward to hearing more from him.
The guy freaking out at 65:00 is hilarious!
"Morality varies so wildly, ..."
- you mean that there are many places where murder is perfectly moral?
Tariq Ramadam, an apologist for Islam is pointing his finger (1:03:50) and saying, "dogmatic minds are dangerous." It would be comical if it wasn't so sinister. It is a perfect example of the duality of Islam playing good cop bad cop. Trouble is, whichever cop wins the day, it is the sharia court you end up in.
This debate format has no place in the 21st Century. The 'discussion' format is so much better, allowing each and every point to be addressed, with nothing dodged.
Absolutely! And I applaud you for taking on one of the most important jobs there is, next to parenting.
I work in a juvenile correctional facility. Many of the kids there don't even know that the earth spins and takes 24 hours to do it once. However, the facility administrators (probably also children of clergy) see fit to allow a heavy dose of Christian indoctrination. To me, that means they've already given up on the kid's education. And thus, as an advocate of science myself, I'm at a loss.
I don't even understand why organized religion still exists...it don't make sense to me.
By religion they mean Christianity. Anything non western is fine
Anakin Skywalker considering in much of Europe being critical of Islam is hate speech, yea
Anakin Skywalker instead we get Rotherham
Anakin Skywalker yep. That's the problem.
+Anakin Skywalker In Islam, what is the punishment for apostasy?
… relativism is itself a religious belief. It is a dogma… Somehow, the relativist has come to
understand that he alone sees the full reality… I hear nonsensical statements
like it is because of religion that all war starts - of course it is because of
religion, but religion is an inescapable part of the human condition.
Relativism also zealously fights to make sure no one believes in any absolutes
while they must use their own absolute to establish this idea. (Garland and Keller, 2018)
I actually don't think Douglas Murray's speech was that exemplary, and believe that people are giving him undue praise because he was the modest middle grounder.
Douglas acknowledges that he believes theistic claims are false, yet continues to say that religion is a container for truth that atheism cannot replace. This is a bizarre thesis indeed - that from a starting point of falsehood, you have a better container for truth than from the starting point of correctness. It seems to me that in comparing a starting point of truth from a starting point of falsehood, the starting point of truth will always, in the long run, be the better container for further truth. How could it be otherwise?
+MrShutthefrontdoor I didn't understand a word from line 5 to the end of your comment.
+heilamessy Beginning from a factual point to discover truth than from a nonfactual start, in the end "truth" will be better obtained and stored than if one started from a nonfactual start.
Many Christian values don't actually require a belief in God to practice them. You can espouse the value of restraining teenage sexuality and promiscuity, marriage and family as a divine commandment, or you can look at the data regarding children of single parent families versus children of intact families; the latter is many times more successful by almost any metric. Christianity merely represents a group to preserve, reinforce and perpetuate those values through mutual support.
If I had the choice between a largely Christian society and a largely Atheistic society, I would choose the former, and I am an Atheist. Atheism has royally fucked up Western society by having the arrogance to think that it could remove religious faith without having any coherent moral and ethical framework to replace it with; it may well have been the most irresponsible and destructive act of recent human history.
The social contract requires a religion, as Rousseau nicely explained at the end of said book, thereby also explaining important aspects of the origins and development of several religions.
I admire the courage of The Cambridge Union to be willing to discuss and challenge such topical & relevant social human questions.Would like to keep in touch ! Debate is the foundation of truth & human progress. Politics is another unequal arena.
Dawkins has faith all gaps will be filled with science which is very much the same as what he calls the god of the gaps and just projecting his own thoughts on to others
+m beginization, No dear, that is not the same as the god of the gaps system of thinking, as his faith is in discovery that will undoubtedly answer those questions we still have. The god of the gaps way of thinking is we do not need to learn anymore because god did it. Not the same at all dear.
+The Illuminati Sweetie dear. I see your point here, however science is limited based on our intellect, and ability to find, gather and test information. Science will not "undoubtedly" answer all those questions we still have hon, though it will answer many. And of those, we can only engage what we can see and perceive. I mean, even Dawkins makes cute video games to "prove" what he cant actually show us in nature. But not a terrible thought you had dear. Eventually you may learn and grow enough to justify being such a condescending lil' sweetheart.
Stephen Smith I should rephrase it ask the interesting questions, not just look for the simplest answer and move on
Stephen Smith, oh dear, of course science will one day be able to answer all these questions we ask, that does not mean to say that this will be in Dawkins, or even my lifetime (i am not much younger than he is) but i have faith that those questions will be answered. I do not mean the kind of faith that the religious have but a faith based on the fact that we have managed to answer so many questions already. You are a poppet, but one does have to take in to account the discoveries that have been made in the last century alone when one answers this question, it seems you did not, shame.
You are obviously much younger than he is.
Hello, Cantab here. CUS debates are never ticketed and there is never a pre-debate vote. IMO the result of the vote is largely inconsequential - many people tend to vote based on other factors (such as which side made the better speeches), regardless of personal opinion.
Hmm, I'm unconvinced by Murray's argument. At 1:36:12 he says:
"If the 21st century is to work it will also involve religion knowing its place but it will also invovle atheists and secularists knowing that their place is not to dismiss, deride and laugh at as meaningless, something that seeks for meaning"
I get that people can gain much from, say, Jesus's moral teaching from the Sermon on the Mount, but when applied to Scientology or Mormonism, should the claims that our suffering is caused by alien attackers in our body or that Joseph Smith's obviously-fraudulent method of reading from stone-tablets shouldn't dismissed or laughed at? As for derision, what about those who seek meaning from the teaching of sin, of ourselves as born guilty? Laughter, dismissal and derision when put into the right contexts, are the *best and most precise tools* for the job. The direct antidotes to particular poisons. Perhaps Murray's argument is a quick, broad brushstroke with some merit, but it certainly needs a fine brush to define the details.
If there are better alternatives to this while game of finding meaning, should we not be clearing the table of absurd claims about heaven&hell etc so we can introduce more reasonable and practical claims from the likes of Buddhism (though not a perfect system)? For the skeptical, the inclusion of 'mindfulness' therapy into the NHS (under CBT therapy), is just one example of Buddhism finding its way into secular culture.
P.s. Alan Watts, a mystic and philosopher from the 60s, had a similar position. He felt that theists and atheists alike missed the point all along, that, effectively the purpose of life is to find the state of oneness. To liberate ourselves from the illusion of the self and ego as a way to live fully, afresh.
+tobo86 If you watch other video's of Murray's and even read some of the latest articles for Dawkin's you can see there is more to their logic in not wanting to see the Christian Church ended. They feel which should be obvious that the European church is fairly docile and what is now coming into Europe in great numbers is a form of religion that the people who believe could care less what you think, and more so make most people scared to even criticize it. As Murray said in another video I wish people would save the Ire for people wanting to throw me off a cliff, not just who would wants to prevent me from marrying". I think they are turning their focus to self preservation at this point, to which that might be the best position.
+Axxowiz we're lucky in the UK that we have essentialy a democratic secular society with a mild religious christian element. Religion of the type seen in many other countries however controls individual freedoms and thought. For me thats the big problem with the "let people believe it if it makes them happy and social, so long as it doesn't interfere" type argument; it's not a globally effective answer.
However Murray's argument was probably the most reasonably pragmatic response to the question presented.
Can you objectively define 'oneness'? Objectively define 'ego'? They sound like so many 'orgones' to me.
Funny that you didn't think of that.
@@tomormiston6592 Well that argument worked for transgenders (which redefined the basic biology and are trying to make others respect that), hard parties and festivals where people turn their livers upside down with alcohol and drugs, smoking (things that make people ill despite making them happy and social). Now when it's about religions, it can't work right? What you've stated is very biased in my opinion.
What an intelligent and well-though out reply.
wow, that guy's introduction speech was fantastic!
I was present at the debate and there was no pre-debate vote - there never is in Cambridge Union Society debates. It pretty much renders the final vote meaningless.
Why is it that people keep insisting that religion is somehow forced onto them. It's all but disappeared from public discourse and life. It's sad when even intelligent people play the victim game, and so cynically just to push their own petty agendas.
The answer to your question lies in the following:
In the UK, religious schools still exist and are often the better schools in local catchment areas, meaning that, unless you want your children to go to a worse institution, you have to put up with daily 'worship', church visits and prayers (I have personal experience in that regard). Additionally, while you say that religion has disappeared from public life, that's not entirely true. The bishops who sit in the House of Lords are still very much in the public eye and can criticise and even delay legislation which the commons seek to pass.
Furthermore, we have had notable politicians and even Prime Ministers who have been extremely religious. For example, Tony Blair and (almost our PM after the Brexit vote) Andrea Leadsom. Their views infect their decision-making and affect everybody. Additionally, in schools, religious education is compulsory, whereas teaching children about non-religious world-views such as humanism is not.
In the international sphere, the Holy See is recognised as Permanent Non-Member Observer State at the United Nations, which means that, despite being a 'nation' of celibate priests, it has a powerful voice in worldwide debates on such important issues as contraception, abortion, homosexuality and so forth. Indeed, in votes at the UN which are based on consensus, the Holy See has incredibly disproportionate power to delay or even prevent resolution of important issues.
In addition, many countries around the world remain dogmatically Christian (e.g., Italy and, despite the 1st Amendment, the US), Jewish (Israel) and Islamic (Saudi Arabia etc...) which ultimately delays progress and perpetuates ignorance on issues as important as climate change, sexuality and sexual equality.
Religion is forced on people for all of the above reasons, coupled with the fact that powerful religious institutions are able to prosper thanks to tax breaks and special treatment across the globe. Many people feel that this is completely unfair when those same institutions hold beliefs which run counter to modern science, reason, rationality and are often directly harmful to people who don't hold the same beliefs.
I hear you, but in many ways your answer supports my statement. The things you mention are quite fringe and have virtually no impact anymore. Can you honestly say that anyone around you or yourself have been forced to accept their views. And I mean forced in the full sense of the word and not just a hyperbolic statement. And can you really accept that the religion that spawned the freest most scientific and rational society in the history of the world, when most of the rest of the world is still wallowing in barbarity, as a threat in any realistic sense. That Christianity was just a stepping stone along the way and not the cornerstone of it all? I would venture that the fear is not in the religion itself, but the fact that it's message still holds a moral power that reminds the arrogant heart of it's downfall, a morality that no other branch of thought has been able to replace. To be bound only to an earthly state is to be imprisoned. It is a brutish existence that I wouldn't wish on myself or anyone I know. An artless and mechanical state of mind that has no time for exploring the uncertainty through feelings. It is a world driven by the frightened dilated pupil and the sharpened bloody claw. That is no liberation, but rather a living hell. Science by it's inherent nature cannot define morality. Once it does it becomes a faith. This holds true for any system of thought that tries to define social and private morality. We cannot live without morality because it alone can define our decisions in the shifting unpredictability of life, time and circumstance. Science has no poetry, it has no gentle shifts from major key to minor key that stirs the mind to tears, it has no wild splash of paint that pulls the eye like the tides of the ocean. Just beakers, and chemicals and sterile environments with clipboards and routines. It is the antithesis of life. It can extend this life, but cannot fill it with meaning.
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" - Nietszche, Thus spoke Zarathustra
Unfortunately trying to get into the deeper threads that connect my thinking on this topic cannot be written in short form so I accept there is no way to fully explain the rationale for my point of view in this forum. What I do know is that I believe that when new atheists start playing the violin about the poor children and how threatened they feel I don't believe it for one second. It's clearly an act, and an act with absolutely no legitimate or rational reason for it's overstatements. And the feeling I get from the complaints you list, and this really isn't a personal attack (I have nothing to gain and write this mostly to explore my own thoughts and feelings on this topic) because I hear examples like this often, that the purpose of all these feigned slights is to banish all religion out of society in totality. That is an act of an extremist. True atheism wouldn't feel this threatened. Science certainly isn't threatened. The church advanced it more than any other organisation in the history of the world, their position has only been replaced by the government and military only the past century or so. And governments are the real pernicious entity if we are weighing up threats. It's power lies in convincing the individual that there is no space that lies outside it's power, and thus demands submission. It's strange that in a culture that has read and discussed Orwell's 1984 to the nth degree it fails to see his fundamental statement about faith and imperfection being the true beauty of humankind, but rather get bogged down into discussions about which governments are the worst kind. The book makes it clear there is no inherently good one. Certainty is an evil that has killed more people in the name of rationality than any other force in the history of mankind. What this all boils down to is a resurgence of the cult of Positivism and the Stalinist project for the New Man, and even a cursory reading of it's history and methodology should send a shiver up any rational spine. The fact that people fail to grasp such an obvious insight frightens me most because it pretty much guarantees a repeat of our past mistakes. Hubris always does that, and every new society think that they, and they alone, have mastered it and overcome their inherent evils through the power of their knowledge and wealth.
I leave with one of the most beautiful and stirring things I have ever read, and this comes from the bible. It has a truth than transcends the ever shifting shores of intellectualism, but has a permanent truth to it that comes from wisdom and the ability to think in the abstract. Science can never produce anything like this. Science can only produce gadgets to entertain and distract us from the death it hides in cold rooms out of sight, far enough to pacify our otherwise fragile and frightened souls.
"What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them."
Religion was forced onto me by my parents and by my schools as a child.
John Fox I dont want to sound like I'm purposefully making assinine comparisons to make an argument because right now I'm sincerely wondering myself. But is it not true that many things (all things to a degree) get imposed on us as kids. Maths get imposed, so does laws and rules, there are so many things... playtime, eating schedule, study time etc. Authority figures have a brief opportunity to instill as many good values as possible before you are completely free to make of it what you will. And I'm not sure, but its quite possible that I kicked even harder against it than you might have. I'm still quite rebellious against authority. I'm wondering now why it is that religion creates such specific offense to a lot of individuals. Is it the fact that the core message is that you carry a burden of responsibility for your actions and we'd prefer not to? Thoughts?
Plutarch said the mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be ignited. Is the primary offense not also perhaps the way in which we are taught? And should religion be held in contempt rather than the imperfect humans that teach us? After 21 most of us are free individuals with the right to unlearn, ignore or rectify obedience through curiousity. Would choosing the empowering option not enrich the individual more?
Religion might not be scientifically true, but it is a culturally true. And it is deeply meaningful in a world where little else is. I'm revisiting religion now much later in life after exploring my freedom to its limits and found it wanting and to see for myself if that wellspring of knowledge that comes through submission isn't more than just a myth. Wouldn't it be great if it was?
+sensi please
:D are you feeling ok dude? I live in Africa and I can promise you that religion plays a fundamental role in the traditional social systems here. If you want to destroy everything that is mysterious beautiful and fascinating about Africa just impose your new favorite belief system (read atheism) onto it like the people of old did theirs. Anyhooo... I have no idea what got up your bottom but you clearly need a break. Take it easy.
Tail bone
•Coccygeus muscle: Together with the Levator Ani muscle, the Coccygeus forms the pelvic diaphragm. These muscles act like a sling or hammock, holding and carrying the organs that are located within the pelvis. If this support function is lost, the patient may develop a "herniation" or "prolapse" (where are the rectum/bowel and other organs from within the pelvis start to sag or drop our way out from the pelvis and down towards the floor).
Do you see how important this tailbone is?
Totally agree... Religion is like some bad hangover ...the very last superstitious 'hold-over' from an ancient past. It's holding us back as a species!! (Sure can't pray our way off this rock floating through space, now can we?!)
***** Fallacy of composition.
I agree it's holding us back... from killing each other. Roughly 10% of mankind are sociopaths, and of those, more than half are apparently upstanding members of the community because they subscribe to a religion or code of beliefs based on judeo-christian, buddhist, or other religious values (like do not steal, murder, rape, etc.).
All you have to do is look back to pre-Abrahamic times, to see that humans just resort to banditry, looting, raping, and stealing whatever they want, to such an extent that it required peaceful religions before mass agriculture could take place, because everyone who failed a harvest would simply resort to banditry, and nobody was providing charity to their neighbor.
Also, almost all of the problems highlighted here are from the Roman Catholic Church (like their prohibition on contraception) such as the Crusades, Inquisition, having hierarchies, etc. Protestantism was actually the TARGET of many Crusades (Hussite, Waldensian, and other crusades) , and generally rejects hierarchy, and was actually the movement that allowed the Enlightenment to occur.
It sounds like the speaker worships Democracy, forgetting Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were all elected leaders in a Democratic Republic. He really thinks the people reject totalitarianism? Nonsense, they simply want it hidden from view. Democracy is a contest in which the best liar wins or the person best able to hide their skeletons in their closet from the media, so they are so good at covering up for themselves and lying. If we look at all governments for the type of leaders they produce and the effect on the population, then in the same way that Tribal or Military based governments produce "strongmen" leaders, Democracy at it's best produces expert liars (with skills in special interest fund-raising) or charismatic demagogues like Mao or Hitler. It's not that Democracy is "free", it's that it is able to cover-up it's abuses of freedom and APPEAR to be free. It is the system that puts the most efficient liar into power and for that, it is quite scary since you will never know the truth.
Even if you disagree, tell me why I or anyone else should not steal, take revenge murder, or rape when we feel like it and/or can get away with it? It is actually illogical for an atheist to not steal something if they 100% can get away with it. Or for an unattractive atheist who knows they will never get a woman, to abduct one when they know they can get away with it. The list goes on. Why not? If they can get away with it, and want it, unless they believe in SPIRITUAL consequences, there is no deterrent. And since most atheists are against the death penalty, they will also take away PHYSICAL consequences.
The logical conclusion of Atheism is Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and all that other stuff that the Nazis gave a bad reputation. Taking from the strong and giving to the weak makes no sense in an Atheist world. The weak would be euthanized and "strong" DNA encouraged. Tell me how you can justify opposing that as an atheist? What LOGICAL argument can you make against eugenics, social darwinism, etc?
None! It's a purely spiritual or emotional appeal. Take away our religions and there will be no logical reason to oppose what essentially we all agree was the greatest evil of the 20th century: social darwinism/eugenics/kill-the-weak mindset that took hold in Germany.
TexanIndependence Moses killed 3,000 of his own people, some by pouring melted gold down their throats. He killed prisoners of war, setting aside only the virgins for the use of his troops.
Liz R You didn't answer my question. Why shouldn't I or anyone else not steal, take revenge murder, or rape when we feel like it and/or can get away with it? Tell me a LOGICAL reason why I shouldn't take WHATEVER I WANT if I can get away with it. Christianity is what tamed the Vikings, tamed the Huns, etc. why shouldn't the STRONG crush the WEAK as EVOLUTION DEMANDS. Only with religion can you LOGICALLY reject Social Darwinism or can the strong reject human desires that cause harm to the weak.
Exactly, "We must learn about history, so it is destined never to repeat itself"
Douglas Murray won the debate for the other side, what a performance, what a result.
+Tomas T It was good of him to realise Dawkins atheism is as fanatical as the imans
+Tomas T He's definitely not the person you want to see on the other side of the debate.
quiet right
+Tomas T No he didn't, AT ALL. Murray dissapoints me deeply in this debate with his unappealing arrogance, especially because his point is a pretty bad one.
He argues that religion provides us with comfort, so that we don't have too much about the sublime questions on life. DAWKINS DOESN'T DISAGREE. However, religion isn't needed to provide this comfort, philosophy is(read that beatiful word once more, "philosophy"). What these people mainly oppose is dogma, unscientific beliefs, irrational moral teachings etc. which BRINGS PROBLEMS.
Douglas was rather tasteless and definetely sleezy in this debate.
+VemundVR I would like to add one more thing: Douglas argues that society would be much worse off without religious comunities. Again he makes the mistake to thing that religion is the only way. What people in a society definetely need is affiliation. Joining a political party could perhaps be a good idea, it would also benefit society in contrast to church meetings (a little black and white on purpose).
What a bunch of strawmen.
The speaker's response is also valid: correlation can be evidence for causation, as the speaker asserted.
*****
"Mao, Hitler, Stalin all well-known atheists that did a lot more harm than good."
Hitler was not an atheist. Mao and Stalin were, but their atheism is as relevant as their non-belief in Santa is when it comes to their "naughty" behaviour.
"Religion might have given them pause for thought to care for their common man."
Religion can often remove the pause for thought, it goes both ways depending on the theology.
"The real killer is man's belief in his complete autonomy - had those men been "religious" you'd be blaming their genocide on Islam as ignorantly as the first speaker did more recent events."
You'll find more people will blame atheism because of what atheists did than atheists accuse the religious of doing what the religious did because of their religion. However atheism isn't a worldview or a doctrine/dogma. Similarly, non-belief in Santa isn't a worldview/doctrine/dogma. What CAN inform ones actions are the things they believe in- i.e. political or religious ideologies.
"Would love it if one atheist I came across read the Quran rather than relying on googled dogmas and borrowed conjecture."
The Quran isn't as important primarily because it's "milder" of the religious texts. The texts of greater concern should be the hadiths in which even in non-war contexts the murder of those who leave religion are advocated.
It is tiresome to hear that idiotic old canard of trying to treat atheism as communism and fascism. Most atheists have no more affinity for those ideologies and the actions which followed from them than Southern Baptists do.
Stalin, Mao, etc didn't claim immortality; but they did claim infallibility.
That ain't human...
23021955
Stupid response and false. Nothing more need be said.
23021955 you're spot on
Just out of interest, do you have any proof that Hitler wasn't an athiest?
The astronomer Aristarchus of Samos was the first known person to propose a heliocentric model of the solar system, while the geographer Eratosthenes accurately calculated the circumference of the Earth. Hipparchus (c. 190 - c. 120 BC) produced the first systematic star catalog. The level of achievement in Hellenistic astronomy and engineering is impressively shown by the Antikythera mechanism (150-100 BC), an analog computer for calculating the position of planets
Absolutely there is no place for religion in 21st Century.
As a humanist, I have no respect for those that lie, for any reason. Those that Lie to themselves before they even speak are the least trustworthy people in the world.
Humanism does not need dishonesty and for the above reasons religion should no longer be in the discussion.
It is not disagreement if your being lied to. It is defense of your integrity.
Between Hitchens and Dawkins over the past decade a good demo of their lies has seen much light.
Douglas Murray tries to make the point that Religion provides a place where you can ask serious questions about our existence. If that were only true....rather than provide a questioning and open discussion in my experience there was almost zero honest open questioning for the vast majority of parishioners. I guess if were are looking at where religion might best place itself in the 21 Century, then you'd have a hard time disagreeing. Philosophers would love it....churches turning into a place where the public can discuss questions on our purpose, our responsibility to each other...etc. A kind of Department of Philosophy for the masses. I can imagine the scintillating discussions....NOT! Based on what I see in RUclips comments it would either get hung up with people who simply don't understand....or devolve into a screaming match. It would be an interesting experiment....maybe I'm wrong.
seaglider844 thanks for pointing that out.
religion doesn't try to answer questions, they claim to have all the answers from the outset.
Murray also claims that if we were to take religion out of the world, people would "live meaningless lives [...]" which is as wrong as it can get.
seelefantman I will try to use Camus to explain this position . First we must recognize that this universe may be absurd or meaningless . And this feeling of absurd only comes to existence because we exist . If we don't exist , their is no reason that the universe itself is absurd . So the absurd ends with death eventually .
Camus stated that : the biggest contradiction of human is to search meaning in a meaningless world . And the existentialism position , that people can construct their own meaning is what Camus called " philosophical suicide " . Because you deny the meaningless universe by posing the fact that you could create a meaning out of it . So it's basically Irrational to say that you could create a meaning in a meaningless universe .
Camus solution is to accept the consequence of the feeling of absurd instead of the cliche solution of suicide . Would you dare say that everybody , how smart are they , accept the consequence of the absurd ? Again , the existentialists screws this up , so think carefully ;)
loboris1995
I wouldn't say that existentialism contradicts Camus' position in any way. If that's what Camus thinks, then I just won't agree with him.
In this case "meaning" is not a well defined term. It would be better for us to search for suitable definitions for our terms before we debate with them.
I think we have 2 definitions here. One is "meaning" in the objective sense, and one is "meaning" in the subjective sense.
Given that...
There may not be an ultimate objective meaning to the universe or to life. But there still can be meaning to my life. My life can still mean something - to me, to my family, to my friends, to society. That's the position I hold currently.
That's why I don't agree with Murray, and I don't think I'm committing philosophical suicide because of that.
I agree that most (for the most part religious people) won't agree with the my position, but that's exactly due to their religious mindset, and some degree of egotism and/or self-overestimation.
The most beautiful thing about being human is the fact that we have the capacity to look at reality and truly understand it. Reality is more profound, beautiful, and humbling than any religious belief. I don't understand those who think that without religious stories the world is harsh or depressing. Honestly, the fact that some people cannot see the beauty of the universe without religion is incredibly sad.
Dawkins talks like a six former.
I'm not a fan of Dawkins, but this is a foolishly arrogant comment.
Cambridge students voted 324 versus 138 against the motion of 'This House Believes Religion has no place in the 21st Century'.
Faith in the students at my University restored.
The Roman Catholic Church will outlast Cambridge.
IMHO, As a Christian, I have found that ORGANIZED religion has done far more damage than any atheist in completely distorting the message of Christ, and therefore is incapable of accurately ANSWERING many of those big questions! Young Earth Creationism is one example that immediately comes to mind..Catholicism is another...
For example, when asking "why does the kettle boil?", one could describe a boiling kettle of water solely in terms of the underlying physics of thermodynamics, heat transfer and molecular movement. But such an explaination isn't a sufficient explaination. The kettle is ALSO boiling because the professor wanted tea before his afternoon lecture and put the kettle on. The two kinds explainations are not in conflict.
Have you ever read the letter he wrote to his daughter about "good and bad reasons for believing in things"? The man is neither bitter, or hardened. He's actually more soft-spoken than a lot of atheists prefer to be. If you're going to attack someone's character, at least attack it accurately.
What a fantastic debate. I am a buddhist, I will stay in that direction. It has helped me gain an isight in to life and my place in life. We are part of life, natture and the universe.
Murray's speech was thought provoking. I'm used to the religious spouting out the same old twaddle about atheists being dogmatic, but I found my views being moderated by Murray. I think religious groups do have a place in our society, so long as they do not seek to oppress, and as long as it doesn't claim to be the source of morality. I would welcome a church that sought to provide a place for people to ask questions and find purpose in their lives, without being told what their purpose is.
In the first floor round, why are the points made in isolation rather than response? I refer specifically to the sexism in the church argument, largely ignored by the opposition
The closing speaker made a very good point, but did not completely apply it to both sides. His point is that religion should not have the ability to *dictate* to those outside their religion. But he did not go so far as to say that atheist and scientists should also give up this right, which they should. For the simple reason that no one has a right to dictate to someone else what they should do, with the exception to community decisions decided openly by a majority of the community.
Very good debate. I find it disappointing when people accuse religion of basic human behaviors without acknowledging these behaviors in scientific and atheist practice.
Empathy and tolerance should be expected of religion and secularism alike.
Religion has had a lot of negativity in the past, but so has secularism.
The whole point of a debate vote is to see if the content of the debate changed opinions. What the core beliefs of either side are is not really relevant to the debate, although is of course relevant to the initial question.
Dawkins may be rude every now and again (e.g. referring to a woman who asked a question as an 'interrupter') but he knows what he's talking about. A lot of respect for the guy. He's contributed so much to the our understanding of religion, society, our existence and human behaviour.
in fairness to him, he spoke about his speciality - as a biologist he attempts to work out what is true. his point is that if religion is based on something that isn't true, then there is no basis for it to exist
Interesting debate, I think Ramadan's speech stand out & Murray concluded magnificently!
It's an odd thing, to tell someone who describes the beauty of her life that she cannot see the very beauty she describes, just because what she sees does not rely on belief in a deity. It suggests a very limited understanding of the human condition.
I'm a atheist, and believes that religion through times has been mostly evil and bad. But to state there's nothing good about religion is just rediculous.
So where exactly is this debate between Islam and Humanist taking place?
An EU report pointed out recently that the EU and Saudi relations are to be re-evaluated because;
'Currently in Saudi Arabia, there is no freedom of belief or expression. Sharia law forms the basis of Saudi Arabia's legal system, and it allows no deviation from Sunni Islam, treating blasphemy as apostasy - an offence usually met with a death sentence. To aggravate matters further and increase the pressure on Saudis to adhere to the official government interpretation of Islam, the deep connection between the royal family and the religious establishment means that there is no separation between state and religion.'
I would then like to know why the idea that a transcendental basis of morality as dehumanising is a dangerous idea? Why is it dangerous to think that people who base their moral obligation on a beyond this earth deity who's commandments validate killing innocent people for violations of those commandments without a path of knowing or being able to question the tenants upon which those commandments are justified by? Obedience is demanded without question and you will be rewarded in the afterlife? Is this not dehumanising your moral judgement? And if so, what is dangerous about that idea as a reason to doubt its validity in the 21st Century?
Spencer Fildes,
"it's not where he is Dad, it's where he's been and where he come from, he's not going anywhere and this is what happens to us too, we have to just, sort of, do our most with this time" she is 11 btw"
Its all good until your kids ask the question,
" Why do we have to just, sort of, do our most with this time?"
.
1. Objective morality must exist if an act is to be immoral even if no one thinks it is. 2. It doesn't explain how something is moral. 3. A society might flourish even if its members occasionally commit immoral acts. 4. Suppose an affluent citizen of society goes on a trip and encounters a hermit. The hermit wants his possessions, so he kills him. In purely material terms, the hermit is better off, but he has still acted immorally.
Regarding that quote: That doesn't mean that Sam Harris liked and/or thought kindly of William Lane Craig. And it doesn't show that Sam respected him either.
Secularism does not mean an absence of Religion. A removal of organized religion will inevitable result in it being replaced with a secular equivalent. Same chocolates, different box.
When was this filmed? The video quality suggest around 1980, but it's hard to believe that they would have debated the 21st century then.
The debate was not between the merits of atheism or religion - just whether religion still has a place in the 21st C. Unfortunately, even though religion has little to contribute to the problems facing mankind in the 21st C, it would be counter-productive to exclude believers from the decision making process as this would lead to alienation of a large section of society that still takes comfort in Bronze Age myths and belief.
Always hilarious when the best insult someone can come up with is "You are similar to me".
At the conclusion of this debate [ about the " cherished " 21st C ? ] one could imagine the pondering of a mesmerised Pagan , wondering if these respective groups were antagonising each other or setting themselves up , in concert , to lead a general public to over-reach themselves , both resourcefully and energetically , given that organised religion no longer has a place in the hearts + minds of this particular generation thus releasing this generation to run contrary to the status -quo .
A god who knows everything, created everything, would be magic.
Every single thing we understand about the world and universe in which we live, has come from the application of the scientific method.
Religion has nothing to tell us about abiogenesis, evolution, physics, on-and-on.
Every time we figure something out, your god has less places to hide.
Lack of an answer does not default to god.
Without resorting to guesses and metaphors like "love," and "outside time and space, and without making shit up, provide explanations and evidence of the following:
What is your god?
Where is your god?
How does your god interact with the universe?
And this was held at my university . . .
"The closing speaker made a very good point, but did not completely apply it to both sides. "
- thats mainly because scientists and atheists are not trying to dictate anything. But are vehemently against those who DO.
In response to the girl @ 59:00.... Life is suffering- and one can only feel free by fully understanding that!
It makes me sad that people debate this still. Can't we all just live in reality already?
In his presentation Prof Ramadam talks about discussion with organised religion about the ends. Unfortunately the ends for the Abrahamic religions are a time of glorious clarification of their observance and damnation of those heretics that thought they knew better. What discussion can be had if you believe in an ends time. Humanist don't have such a glorious utopian view point but believe in values that allow for a more harmonious human existence through the invocation of the declaration of human right upon all citizens of the world. Human dignity for all because there is a belief that we should all be born equal, free from persecution and free to the greatest possible degree to live ones life as one sees fit by peaceful means. Like the chap said in questions maybe those values are worth being dogmatic about because they put people first and political and religious ideologies second.
Religions may well have an understanding of being human but they advocate an authoritarian prescribed approach to trying to control that human spirit. As he mentioned Socrates it is apt to bring in the point that of all the past sages it was Socrates that advocated a method of guidance rather than an indoctrination of observance. My understanding is that he beloved in a method of enquiry not an indoctrination of what to believe and how to obey. To doubt and questioning your beliefs and only knowing the extent of your own ignorance can you really be on the path to understanding. It is the rediscovery of that process that slowly allowed Europe to question old religious dogmatism that allowed for the path of humanism to start again. It's in my humble opinion that the dialogue has in fact been one way and religion has changed and is continually changing because of the ideals and rationality that humanism and humanist extol to and calling it what you will a 'rational dogmatism with a superiority complex' will not change the fact that simple values of individual rights and equality are hard to undermine with any religious righteousness.
"without islam there will be chaos"
Even WITH it there's still chaos.
"who will teach us right from wrong, good from bad, how to pray, give to charity, fasting, self control, etc."
Are you telling me that the only reason you do those things is because you've been indoctrinated into religion? The only reason you help the poor is because you'll be rewarded in the afterlife? Sorry, but that doesn't make you good. We don't need religion to tell us right from wrong- we need empathy, rationality, etc.
Tariq Ramadan - the man who uses so many words to say absolutely nothing....
I'm stating that one person claiming that Craig who has been having debates many years has won 100% of them doesn't sound even remotely objective. Incidentally, Dawkins gave credible enough reasons for not having any initial interest in debating Craig, you don't have to like them but he gave them. Eventually Dawkins did debate Craig in Mexico. Irrespective of anyone insisting that anyone else won a debate, I or anyone else IS ALLOWED TO DISAGREE! Many do. So sorry if this bruises your ego.
Good speeches by the proposition, but a pretty hard motion to argue.
this is one thing i did not understand if we are born into sin and we are sinner till we beg for forgiveness then what was the point of jesus's blood sacrifice? why couldn't god being the omnipotent being that he is just say " i forgive the original sin"
Well Dawkin's "God of the physicists" is connected to a "deist" doctrine (the "safe" god). But what does it matter whether it's connected to any specific doctrine? Is a doctrine true ONLY if it's not specific?
Tail bone
•Sphincter Ani Externis muscle: This is the muscle responsible for the control of the stool (bowel movements). If the function of the anal sphincter muscles are lost, the patient loses control of their bowel movements (the patient develops bowel incontinence).
I think you are right. It is time to get the message across that, even if we are not here by design and even if death really is the end, this does not mean that life is pointless, as many critics of atheism seem to assume. The problem is that it is not an easy message to "sell", compared with: "Accept Jesus as your saviour and you can live for ever!" Still, we can try. Where did I put the biscuit tin?
Ignorance wins this battle. But reason will win the war.
This person is describing how bautiful she finds reality from a non-religious stand-point. You are in no position whatsoever to say that she is lying to you just because she doesn't fit into your world view. Just because someone understands the source, evolutionary cause and the ultimate effect of dopamine and seretonin doesn't mean they can't enjoy football in the park.
Knowing what the sun really is makes it if anything more meaningful and amazing, certainly it doesn't detract from its beauty.
"[S]o what morality is there, even in religion, that we don't decide through debate and common agreement, which therefore makes it our own and not that of God?"
The fact that even if we commit immoral acts, it is still wrong.
I recently saw a very good video on youtube about people who try to describe non-religious viewpoints as religions. It asked the question "do you regard religion as such a bad thing that you use it as an insult?"
Well, do ya?
All good intentions are not evil. But all evil is well-intentioned.
Those statements don't contradict each other. There is a difference between "the power to dictate laws", and "religion does have things to say." Essentially it's the difference between the power to set laws and the right to have an opinion. I don't think religion should have power to dictate the laws or the lives of people who do not follow it, but I do think that we should all be open to discussion and then vote for what you want.
It's not a matter of wanting to be an atheist. I am an atheist because there is no other sensible conclusion to draw.
And yet, as I said in the first place, religion has a place. It comforts the ignorant and the inculcated. Once ignorance is gone, inculcation will follow but for now the ignorant and the inculcated can take their comfort from thinking there's a god. Of course it doesn't matter which god, after all there are thousands to choose from.
The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.
All sorts of interpretations are possible. I could just as easily conclude that they simply didn't want to offend the kindly and amusing cleric, or that they were a conservative audience, choosing the conservative option.
But it's of no consequence; the prevalence of reason is inexorable and all the debates in the world will not stop reality replacing the all too easy answers of religions.
Religion _can't_ be excluded from the realm of politics, because _all_ politicians, without exception, take their worldviews -- metaphysical beliefs -- to work with them. _All_ policies and legislation reflect metaphysics. It could not be otherwise.
The guy that was the atheist speaking on same side as the religious at the end of the debate is the man to be credited with winning the debate for the theists. The debate in the end kind of said that religion has a place in the 21st century despite the ludicrous magical claims made by the theists.
There are some people that do need the emotional crutch that religion offers for their meaningless lives. Education has to do a better job of informing about how to live a life without need for magic
I live in the U.S. We're supposed to be a developed nation, but I wonder whether such a debate would even be possible here? Certainly, there are some types of debates, but they seem more 'for show,' and prone to dissolving into thoughtless animosity. Which is not atypical of our culture. 'We' place high value on spectacle and scoring points. The secular-vs.-religion strife has taken-over and largely immobilized our country. I do not recommend being like much of what you see of us.
I thought it was a bit of a disjointed debate in that each speaker answered their own version of the question on the whole. Then accused the other side of not having an answer. It is not surprising therefore that the last speaker, Douglas Murray, was able to put across the point, unopposed, that religions offer guidance upon and a forum to discuss the big questions of our time (abortion, death etc) and to infer that without them these questions would go unlooked at, unanswered by secular bodies.
Arif Ahmed: "Dogmatic minds are dangerous"
Wiki Definition of Dogma: "Dogma is the official system of belief or doctrine held by a religion"
I rest my case!!!!!!!!
Oh dear Red, do I believe you or Christopher Hitchins?
Christopher Hitchens said ahead of his debate with Craig;
"I can tell you that my brothers and sisters, my co-thinkers, in the unbelieving community take him very seriously. He’s thought of as a very tough guy; very rigorous, very scholarly, very thoughtful. I say that without reserve. Normally I don’t get people saying to me ‘good luck tonight’ or ‘don’t let us down’ but with him I do."
I choose Hitchins, you OK with that?
At (1:02:44) Tariq Ramadan responds to a question from young woman on how hard it is for atheists to feel engaged and not excluded from dialogue with people who think will go to hell, by asking her to ignore “those religious people who might say that”. That would include Mohammed, and the Quran. It is not the opinion of just a few Muslims, it is foundational from the sacred texts of Islam, that non-believers in god will go to hell and be tortured forever.
That's a separate (though related), epistemological issue. Our ignorance of some phenomenon doesn't say anything about its metaphysics. One might disagree about, say, the precise topography of an exoplanet, but it presumably still has one. Similarly, disagreement about ethics doesn't preclude objective morality. It is an argument against naturalism, which is unable to furnish one with objective norms, not for some specific version of theism. I agree that reason is important in ethics.
Tariq Ramadan didn’t want to even hear the student question from the floor (46:00). He was the only speaker not to do so. He hardly addresses opposing points. Instead, he simply mischaracterises those points as rooted in hatred or that they are dangerous. Even stranger, he decides that he can redefine “humanism”. Humanism has always been an alternative to religion (or that humanists have long been persecuted by the religious in past centuries).
Those who are incapable of addressing the immorality of the religion of Abraham, are witlessly following bronze-age morals and harming humanity's progress.
What is up with the saturation on this video, you would think Cambridge would have better video equipment
I worked in that hall, it`s acoustically perfect. This debate is cool too.
According to The Guardian, Dawkin’s lost the debate by 324 votes to 136 at the end from an audience of almost 800 mainly Cambridge students.