The Trouble With Atheism, Channel 4

[Azrael]

Now, no matter how much Liddle said Darwinism was a New Testament or Holy Scripture, that did not make it so. Thus far, the evidence supports evolution by natural selection. But were evidence to contradict it, then Darwinism would have to be reassessed. Sure, there will be resistence by some - that is people, for you. But once there is too much evidence to ignore, then Darwinism tumbles.

Dawinism has already tumbled. The modern theory of evolution is quite different to the one Charles Darwin proposed. This is of course how science works, and it was utterly disingenuous of Liddle to claim that scientists treat The Origin of Species as a holy text. The way evolutionary theory has developed explicitly rejects that view.

(And in case Mr Liddle's lawyers are sniffing around, I'll happily allow that he lacks a single deceptive bone in his body and is simply stupid.)

 

[danny la rouge]

Dawinism has already tumbled. The modern theory of evolution is quite different to the one Charles Darwin proposed.

Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection. That stands. Certainly Darwin didn't know about genes or DNA, but that doesn't matter, all that does is paint a fuller picture, not a different one.

In what way has Darwinism - evolution by natural selection - tumbled?

 

[Wilf]

most of all liddle irirtated me by suggesting (well, more than that, actually saying) that all atheists must be 100% reliant on enlightenment humanism, the scientific method - and that they are bound to fall back on those things in their attitude to life, morality etc. Pure idiocy. What about, to be high minded , psychology, poetry, art, intuition - or alternatively, inheritted attitudes, your family, societal norms, simple preference etc.

an almost seminal example of how to put together an invalid argument.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Name one good point.

I was actually hoping for a good point or two.

That religious and athiest funidies exist on both sides

 

[Wilf]

That religious and athiest funidies exist on both sides

yeah, but atheist fundies are just bores with a poor dress sense - religious fundies are far more worrying

 

[Barking_Mad]

yeah, but atheist fundies are just bores with a poor dress sense - religious fundies are far more worrying

yeah, that must be it.

 

[danny la rouge]

That religious and athiest funidies exist on both sides

But that's the point I was making above: being "fundamentalist" about evidence is not the same as fundementalism about belief. In fact, I don't think it is sensible to use the word fundamentalist about the former.

 

[Azrael]

Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection. That stands. Certainly Darwin didn't know about genes or DNA, but that doesn't matter, all that does is paint a fuller picture, not a different one.

In what way has Darwinism - evolution by natural selection - tumbled?

Excuse the rhetorical flourish. I simply meant, as you say, that many of the details have been amended and expanded; and therefore modern evolutionary theory is not a carbon-copy of The Origin of Species. Liddle presented The Origin of Species was some sort of atheist holy text that lay beyond question. (Completely ignoring the way the sciencfic method operates.)

As I said a page back, it's impressive that that Dawin's basic hypothesis (that evolution occurs, and by means by natural selection) still stands after a century and a half of scientific progress.

 

[Azrael]

But that's the point I was making above: being "fundamentalist" about evidence is not the same as fundementalism about belief. In fact, I don't think it is sensible to use the word fundamentalist about the former.

This is a point Dawkins himself made in The God Delusion, and I couldn't agree more.

I do think the two points I listed a page back (that viewing humans as animals is potentially dangerous, and most people have a "god instinct" that needs fulfilling) are weighty ones deserving of serious answers. Perhaps others were raised in the programme that I missed. But a clown like Liddle isn't the man to give them. The fact he was chosen to present this says a lot about the cliquiness and nepotism that infests British journalism.

 

[danny la rouge]

Excuse the rhetorical flourish. I simply meant, as you say, that many of the details have been amended and expanded; and therefore modern evolutionary theory is not a carbon-copy of The Origin of Species.

Ah, right. Yes, I agree.

 

[Treacle Toes]

C&P from the other thread (if it's survival of the fittest I'm doubling my chances ) ...

An agnostic fundamentalist, now there's a novelty.

Most of The Trouble With Athiesm awful, but two solid points emerged from all the logic-leaps and slander.

1: Man becomes just another animal without God, and can be treated as such.

.

Interesting, considering the most 'godly/religous' of this world run around doing such inhuman things....

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I watched only the first half, while I was waiting for the next bit of Corrie. But my problem with it was this: he attempted to equate belief and evidence.

This is such a key point in all this bollox by the ID/creationist fucktards...it needs stamping on every discussion about this.

 

[danny la rouge]

Originally Posted by danny la rouge
I watched only the first half, while I was waiting for the next bit of Corrie

This is such a key point in all this bollox by the ID/creationist fucktards...it needs stamping on every discussion about this.

Yes, let's say it loud and clear: "The second installment of Corrie in a Monday starts at 8.30pm!"

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Yes, let's say it loud and clear: "The second installment of Corrie in a Monday starts at 8.30pm!"

 

[Azrael]

Interesting, considering the most 'godly/religous' of this world run around doing such inhuman things....

That would be one of the answers. Another would be that the issue isn't whether we have religion; it's whether the religious instinct is bound up with temporal politics. And in the West we have secularism, which Liddle attacked, to thank for the seperation of the two.

It could further be argued that the "religious instinct" can be conciously overcome, as other unsavoury instincts have been. (Namely the ones that tell us to kill and screw our way through life.) Or that the "religious instinct" as a distinct entity is a false construct, and its better elements (a sense of mystery, aesthetic appreciation, a sense of profound wellbeing) can be fulfilled seperately to its malign elements (unquestioning belief, fear of judgement, the herd instinct).

This is weighty stuff, and the sort of thing I'd like to see a proper theologian address on TV.

 

[danny la rouge]

a proper theologian

Do you have evidence for their existence?

 

[Azrael]

It could also be argued that rational ethics based on compasion, philosophy, and reciprocation do far more to elevate human worth than belief in a sky god. Reliance on a cosmic father figure to decide our morals for us actually demeans human worth.

On the question of Corrie, I must remain an irrational atheist. (It might exist, but I like to think it doesn't. )

 

[Treacle Toes]

That would be one of the answers. Another would be that the issue isn't whether we have religion; it's whether the religious instinct is bound up with temporal politics. And in the West we have secularism, which Liddle attacked, to thank for the seperation of the two.

It could further be argued that the "religious instinct" can be conciously overcome, as other unsavoury instincts have been. (Namely the ones that tell us to kill and screw our way through life.) Or that the "religious instinct" as a distinct entity is a false construct, and its better elements (a sense of mystery, aesthetic appreciation, a sense of profound wellbeing) can be fulfilled seperately to its malign elements (unquestioning belief, fear of judgement, the herd instinct).

This is weighty stuff, and the sort of thing I'd like to see a proper theologian address on TV.

I don't have all the answers either.........I do feel people need 'something' to believe in, kind of giving sense and purpose to the world and interactions around them....faith manifests in a variety of waying and is channeled in different diections, religous or not.

 

[Azrael]

Do you have evidence for their existence?

Not until C4 stops handing out jobs to media cronies.

But on this matter I would like to have faith.

 

[danny la rouge]

faith manifests in a variety of waying and is channeled in different diections, religous or not.

Indeed, but in all instances it is a Bad Thing.

 

[Azrael]

I don't have all the answers either.........I do feel people need 'something' to believe in, kind of giving sense and purpose to the world and interactions around them....faith manifests in a variety of waying and is channeled in different diections, religous or not.

Faith means evidence without belief, which I find a very dangerous philosophy, so I'd like to think its positive aspects could manifest themselves in other ways. Scientists like Dawkins find a sense of fulfilment and meaning in the natural world, which doesn't work for me, but good luck to them. For others it can probably be found elsewhere. Problem is, as the saying goes, that when people stop believing in religion they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything.

Case in point: all those teenagers converting to Wicca after watching too much Buffy. (Or was that Christian propaganda? Hopefully so!)

 

[danny la rouge]

Faith means evidence without belief

I trust you mean "belief without evidence"?

Just in case anyone wants to wilfully misunderstand.

 

[Azrael]

I trust I did.

Either God is smiting my words, or the Glenmorangie is kicking in.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Faith means evidence without belief, which I find a very dangerous philosophy, so I'd like to think its positive aspects could manifest themselves in other ways. Scientists like Dawkins find a sense of fulfilment and meaning in the natural world, which doesn't work for me, but good luck to them. For others it can probably be found elsewhere. Problem is, as the saying goes, that when people stop believing in religion they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything.

Case in point: all those teenagers converting to Wicca after watching too much Buffy. (Or was that Christian propaganda? Hopefully so!)

Understood..... but for me it comes down to choices and to some extent our desire to feel purpose and give meaning to our lives is behind it, it seems like a natural thing to me......it is possible to find a sense of fulfilment by accepting the 'possibilities' of more than one school of thought..... personally the desire to make/have made the 'right' choice and prove that to others is where the ego takes over.

 

[danny la rouge]

our desire to feel purpose and give meaning to our lives

This is important. I feel purpose and meaning is to be found in relationships with others, especially family. But others may feel the need for some cosmic purpose, something that "works in mysterious ways", to give meaning to the trials of life.

 

[camouflage]

"Works in mysterious ways", the last refuge of the godder.

 

[metalguru]

at least if people behave badly in a secular society, they have to be accountable for their own actions rather than hiding behind some bollocks about 'gods will'.

Ideally, yes. But in practice they can also hide behind the 'scientific method' or some political ideology.

Where one particular secular philosophy becomes too dominant, it is as difficult to challenge as religion.

 

[William of Walworth]

Ideally, yes. But in practice they can also hide behind the 'scientific method' or some political ideology.

Do you object to the scientific method then? Why, if so?

Where one particular secular philosophy becomes too dominant, it is as difficult to challenge as religion.

What kind of secular philosophy though?

If in a certain society, a dominant ideology can't easily be challenged, surely the main problem there is with the lack of democracy/lack of free exchange of ideas, rather than with secularism per se.

 

[Gavin Bl]

I thought his sneering at Darwin, and the attempt to link him to Nazism was a disgrace, in a 'stiff letter' to The Times type of way.

And for someone who made such a fuss about morality

From Wikipedia entry on Liddle

In 2004 his personal life was the subject of much comment when he cut short his honeymoon to return to London so he could be with his mistress Alicia Munckton (a receptionist at The Spectator); his marriage ended in a swift divorce. His philandering was dramatized in Toby Young's play Who's The Daddy?.

Now what would the 10 Commandments say about that? On your honeymoon ffs.

 

[User 301X/5.1]

I enjoyed the programme. Not because I like Liddle or agree with what he is saying or how he tried to pull an argurement together on the subject.

I enjoyed it because the topic is very interesting and there is not enough of this sort of programme on TV. There is a huge void here which can be filled with books but I quite enjoy laying on the sofa and letting someone else do all the leg work.

More debates about the life, universe and everything on my telly please!