Halibut Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Corpus Animus - great first post. Amen to that indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks seeks common ground between religion and science and Professor Richard Dawkins says Amen to that ... youtu . be/wiIaErxzGSE?t=10m10s (Sorry, I can't drop in a url as this is my first post having abandoned my previous alias some time ago). I found this an incredibly refreshing conversation and couldn't stop myself coming back to share it with you ... Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks: This is precisely what I think is the common ground between us, I don’t minimise the differences. The common ground between us is that you and I are committed to question, to the use of critical intelligence, to valuing human rights and the dignity of the human person, and you acknowledge that there have been times when science has been misused, but the answer to bad science is not no science, it’s good science. And I acknowledge that religion has sometime s been misused, but I argue that the answer to bad religion is good religion, not no religion, and so even though there is this gap between us, you are not religious and I am, and I’m not seeking to change you on this, could we not work together to value human rights, human dignity where we engage in the collaborative pursuit of truth? Professor Richard Dawkins: Yes, it’s clear that we could. It’s clear that people of good will, wherever they’re coming from could and should work together. Science can be hideously misused, indeed if you want to do terrible things, you’d better use science to do it because that’s the most efficient way to do anything. Sacks (voiceover): Religion and science have been set up as polar opposites, but it appears that Richard Dawkins and I might have found a way to work together. Sacks: So, Richard, if I can sum up our conversation, despite clearly major differences between us, I think we’ve found major areas of agreement and commonality; a respect for truth openness, a willingness to question and the collaborative pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, and you’ve agreed that as we think our way through the very challenging problems of the 21st century, a conversation between us might give both of us both humility but might give both of us a fresh perspective. Now if we can actually agree to walk hand in hand towards the future on that basis, I think that’s a tremendous source for both optimism and hope. Dawkins: I’ll go along with that. Amen to that. Sacks: Thank you Dawkins: Thank you very much. Sacks (voiceover): I feel that we’ve made a real breakthrough. It’s the first time I’ve ever heard Richard be so open to my position on science and religion. Sacks (to camera): Well, I think that was a bit of an epiphany. He met me more than half way. I actually felt something of the magic of the power of a conversation, when 2 people really open to one another, and that allows each of us to move beyond our normal positions and I really think that’s what happened And if it is really so, and I believe it is, that we do have so much in common, then that is a very strong argument for saying that there can be a great partnership between religion and science. youtu . be/wiIaErxzGSE?t=10m10s You are the first person i have come across who watched that. I started a thread about it. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1051170 What encouraged me was that the differences were embraced and mutual respect and understanding was acchieved,that can be established with atheists and people of other faiths with a little more effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Corpus Animus - great first post. Amen to that indeed. Likewise Halibut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorpusAnimus Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Sorry I missed your thread Janie and thanks Halibut. It took a while to decide whether to make the post but it felt important. I have a personal hope that science and religion can mutually respect each others strengths while acknowledging failings. (I'm an atheist and my partner is a believing Catholic!) (tried to PM but still not up to 5 posts!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I think it's reasonable to assume that Dawkins only wrote The God Delusion as a direct result of years of religious attempts to undermine science, in particular evolutionary biology, the very field that Dawkins is an expert in. It must be quite maddening to work hard towards advancing knowledge, and have people shout "liar" at you constantly. When you are dismissed as wrong because my god says so, it is inevitable to be dismiss that god in return. Since science doesn't offer proofs, it's the only defence. Sacks doesn't dismiss science, nor does Rowan Williams, and it's no surprise that Dawkins has been quite polite with these traditions, he has no grudge with them. If atheism is a rejection of theism, then "new atheism" can only be a rejection of "new theism", the more muscular variety that has evolved in the last 50 years culminating in 9/11. Unfortunately, although "there is probably no god" is aimed at horrible religion, it is just as effective against nice religion. So Dawkins and nice religion have been unfairly pitted against each other, when the real enemy of all of us is horrible religion. This was just two guys debating not much, who had not much to disagree on, except one question, which wasn't really mentioned. I don't like Sacks because of the way he misrepresents secularism, and then attacks a strawman of it rather than the secularism that gives him the freedom to follow the faith of his choice. In every programme I've heard him on, he hasn't failed to mention Dawkins like he was the enemy. One should remember that this programme was Sacks', and he had editorial control. I don't buy his claim that Dawkins had some sort of "epiphany" at all, like this was some sort of victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Dawkins was'nt his normal self, he seemed alot different to how he usually goes about god Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Sorry I missed your thread Janie and thanks Halibut. It took a while to decide whether to make the post but it felt important. I have a personal hope that science and religion can mutually respect each others strengths while acknowledging failings. (I'm an atheist and my partner is a believing Catholic!) (tried to PM but still not up to 5 posts!) ...and what are the strengths of religion? (welcome to the Forum by the way) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I think it's reasonable to assume that Dawkins only wrote The God Delusion as a direct result of years of religious attempts to undermine science, in particular evolutionary biology, the very field that Dawkins is an expert in. It must be quite maddening to work hard towards advancing knowledge, and have people shout "liar" at you constantly. When you are dismissed as wrong because my god says so, it is inevitable to be dismiss that god in return. Since science doesn't offer proofs, it's the only defence. Sacks doesn't dismiss science, nor does Rowan Williams, and it's no surprise that Dawkins has been quite polite with these traditions, he has no grudge with them. If atheism is a rejection of theism, then "new atheism" can only be a rejection of "new theism", the more muscular variety that has evolved in the last 50 years culminating in 9/11. Unfortunately, although "there is probably no god" is aimed at horrible religion, it is just as effective against nice religion. So Dawkins and nice religion have been unfairly pitted against each other, when the real enemy of all of us is horrible religion. This was just two guys debating not much, who had not much to disagree on, except one question, which wasn't really mentioned. I don't like Sacks because of the way he misrepresents secularism, and then attacks a strawman of it rather than the secularism that gives him the freedom to follow the faith of his choice. In every programme I've heard him on, he hasn't failed to mention Dawkins like he was the enemy. One should remember that this programme was Sacks', and he had editorial control. I don't buy his claim that Dawkins had some sort of "epiphany" at all, like this was some sort of victory. You just can't accept it can you,? that Dawkins may have mellowed a little since he wrote The God Delusion. I'm always seeing quotes on the internet from 2002 and near that time,its now 2012 now.Do you think everyone should be inflexible? I'm not suggesting he is less of an atheist then he ever was by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 You just can't accept it can you,? that Dawkins may have mellowed a little since he wrote The God Delusion. I'm always seeing quotes on the internet from 2002 and near that time,its now 2012 now.Do you think everyone should be inflexible? I'm not suggesting he is less of an atheist then he ever was by the way. He was only at his insults other month Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 He was only at his insults other month He was back on form then,doesn't want to spoil his image does he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.