Admitting that the West has gone through most questionable societal developments like nationalism, colonialism, neoliberal capitalism, does not mean that enlightenment, natural sciences and the development of basic human rights may be condemned along that line. I am very much in favor of Richard Dawkins who heroically defends a scientific world view against the attempts of religious leaders all over the world (not least in the USA) to gain control over societies. Eco movements should always be aware that they primarily stand on the shoulders of science. Some religious leaders like the Dalai Lama or the Pope (Laudato Si) acknowledge the results of environmental science. I have not perceived similar acknowledgments from Islamic leaders so far.
After listening for 8 minutes I just can't anymore. "questioning the narrative of separation of church and state" by bringing up singular examples such as Richard Dawkins... there is so much that is wrong with that. First of all Richard's opinions don't represent or reflect on official government policy. It is one thing for Richard to say he is a cultural Christian. It is another thing ENTIRELY to claim that governments should not have a separation of church and state. This is a foundational error in logic and reasoning. And second are you really claiming that we should be living in theocracies? Have you seen what the religious right looks like in the US? Why would that be better? And furthermore the idea that you could somehow engage in some therapeutic psychologizing of the entire world at around 8:05 and claim that the lack of religion was supplanted by a need for endless growth? First of all that's not even true. The overwhelming majority of the world is still heavily religious. There are many leaders that are still Christian or Catholic. And even if they weren't, the idea that they are replacing religion is really baseless...you can't just arbitrarily try to claim some psychological motivation without any evidence. This is exactly the type of shoddy scholarship that gives all scientists a bad name See this is why people are turned away by the movement. Instead of it being about climate change, which it should be, you've now smuggled in countless other ideas and narratives, many of which don't make sense, or are heavily based on the insane regressive trend in leftwing academia of seeing everything through the lens of race
Its deeply frustrating that Claire doesn't seem ro have yet understood or accepted that in regards to her t shirt... The Campaign case supporters ARE the jury on oath of the case. And its actions so that it is a case to parliament not judged by their peers in a court. Edward Fitzgerald understands this in his book and Thomas Erskine May acknowledges it as well in his book So campaigns should never be in front of a jury The 1670 William Penn case was protected but the 1661 bill had a consent proceeding which they didn't follow. But its no longer required and the basis was that they weren't doing a petition or remonstration so.therefore didn't required consent as it wasn't anything 😅 Really annoying that defend our juries are understanding this either
I love this guests voice and he’s lots of really interesting things to say - coming from different angles. I’m enjoying this discussion.
excellent discussion and tackling very deep issues in a really holistic way. I feel they could have talked for hours and gone even deeper.
Groundless faith is ignorant and I'm happy to say it's fading away.
Hilarious. Thank you.
Admitting that the West has gone through most questionable societal developments like nationalism, colonialism, neoliberal capitalism, does not mean that enlightenment, natural sciences and the development of basic human rights may be condemned along that line.
I am very much in favor of Richard Dawkins who heroically defends a scientific world view against the attempts of religious leaders all over the world (not least in the USA) to gain control over societies.
Eco movements should always be aware that they primarily stand on the shoulders of science. Some religious leaders like the Dalai Lama or the Pope (Laudato Si) acknowledge the results of environmental science. I have not perceived similar acknowledgments from Islamic leaders so far.
You probably won't since alot of them have funding from gulf petro states
After listening for 8 minutes I just can't anymore. "questioning the narrative of separation of church and state" by bringing up singular examples such as Richard Dawkins... there is so much that is wrong with that. First of all Richard's opinions don't represent or reflect on official government policy. It is one thing for Richard to say he is a cultural Christian. It is another thing ENTIRELY to claim that governments should not have a separation of church and state. This is a foundational error in logic and reasoning. And second are you really claiming that we should be living in theocracies? Have you seen what the religious right looks like in the US? Why would that be better?
And furthermore the idea that you could somehow engage in some therapeutic psychologizing of the entire world at around 8:05 and claim that the lack of religion was supplanted by a need for endless growth? First of all that's not even true. The overwhelming majority of the world is still heavily religious. There are many leaders that are still Christian or Catholic. And even if they weren't, the idea that they are replacing religion is really baseless...you can't just arbitrarily try to claim some psychological motivation without any evidence. This is exactly the type of shoddy scholarship that gives all scientists a bad name
See this is why people are turned away by the movement. Instead of it being about climate change, which it should be, you've now smuggled in countless other ideas and narratives, many of which don't make sense, or are heavily based on the insane regressive trend in leftwing academia of seeing everything through the lens of race
I'd rather listen to you all day than this religious bullshit. Do you have a channel?
Its deeply frustrating that Claire doesn't seem ro have yet understood or accepted that in regards to her t shirt... The Campaign case supporters ARE the jury on oath of the case. And its actions so that it is a case to parliament not judged by their peers in a court.
Edward Fitzgerald understands this in his book and Thomas Erskine May acknowledges it as well in his book
So campaigns should never be in front of a jury
The 1670 William Penn case was protected but the 1661 bill had a consent proceeding which they didn't follow. But its no longer required and the basis was that they weren't doing a petition or remonstration so.therefore didn't required consent as it wasn't anything 😅
Really annoying that defend our juries are understanding this either
From Idiots for Idiots .....
while capitalisms reduction to externalities creates a hell that will disolve that heaven.
Nicely illiterate.
@@Fish_N_Chips_Dude Dude, You either get my language and meaning or you don't. I don't loose sleep over it.