FORA.tv
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/11/17/Great_Issues_Forum_What_Is_Religion
Philosopher Daniel Dennett argues that it is immoral for pastors to teach intelligent design. Theologian John Haught criticizes Dennett’s language but expresses agreement with his position, identifying creationism as “not only bad science, but horrible theology.”
—–
The Forum’s year-long exploration of religion launches with a program featuring distinguished philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett and noted evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson.
They are joined by additional participants to discuss questions such as: What is the nature and purpose of religion? Is it a product of our evolution and something we can now do without? Is it a system of belief and practice that humans require in order to build communities and construct meaning for their lives? What in human make-up renders religion possible? How has religious belief developed and changed over the years, and how does it continue to do so? – CUNY
Born in Boston, Dr. Daniel Dennett received his B.A. in Philosophy from Harvard University in 1963, and earned his Doctorate in Philosophy at Oxford University in 1965. After teaching at U.C. Irvine for six years, Dennett joined the faculty at Tufts University in 1971, where he is now a Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.
Dennett has written extensively about the mind, consciousness, and evolution. He published his first book, Content and Consciousness, in 1969 and is perhaps best known for his 1995 book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, which explores the implications of natural selection on humanity’s place in the universe. He has also published more than one hundred scholarly articles in professional journals, ranging from Behavioral and Brain Sciences to Poetics Today.
John F. Haught (Ph.D. Catholic University, 1970), is Senior Fellow, Science and Religion, Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University. He was formerly Professor in the Department of Theology at Georgetown University (1970-2005) and Chair (1990-95).
His area of specialization is systematic theology, with a particular interest in issues pertaining to science, cosmology, evolution, ecology, and religion.
Source
Precisely, therefore religion isn't the main factor preventing a solution, as I said, is an excuse.
I'm glad there you can still think about issues and not just repeat what you've heard in these biased atheists videos.
you're just messing around with the word politics as if this would exclude the fact that a conflict is religious. every conflict that has ever happened between two group were political. so what? how would this would exclude that a lot of these conflict were fueled aand caused by religion? according to this logic, no conflict has ever been religious. total nonsense.
if you would go back to the beginning of our discussion, you would see tht i hv demonstrated why the christian god was impossible because he is incoherent, he possesses attributes which are mutually exclusive (both perfectly just and merciful, he is timeless but we have free will, he is all forgiving but send people to eternal torture (knowing and planning in advance their demise)) i have already made a fair case about why i don't believe in your god, and lack of evidence has never been 1 o them
and telling me that to have evidence of its existence i must first make the assumption that he exist is a pretty weak point
"Different groups will continue to fight for power and control, is human nature"
all of these groups happens to be divided by religion. strange that these problem about other humans fighting for control and power over other people almost only happens in very religious places, by highly religious people.
The crusades were a religious conflict, the war between protestant and catholics in Ireland, the initial Islamic battles under Muhammad and some conflicts in Africa between protestant and catholics are the most important religious conflicts we know. Most of the other conflicts have political elements and have used religion as an excuse. You need to read more about this….
The incoherence is only due to the concept you have of WHO God is. There is no conflict. What do you mean by timeless? God is bound by absolute time, which is the notion that events follow sequences. The time we meassure with our watches is relative.
Is how it works, I didn't invented the system. God did it that way to assure our freedom.
""these problem about other humans fighting for control and power over other people almost only happens in very religious places"" what about the 50 million people Stalin (atheist) killed? or the 2 million killed by Pol Pot (atheist), or the thousands dissapeared by the Castro regime (atheist) or communist china (atheist) and now the oppression in North Korea? (atheist). Is actually the other way around. Every atheist country has a record oppression and control over people. You're brainwashed
time is a material propriety. if god isnt timeless, he is material. pulling the concept of absolute time (concept proven to be false by einstein) out of your arse won't make your god anymore logical.
"The incoherence is only due to the concept you have of WHO God is."
it is not MY concept. it is the concept of god as he is depicted by philosophers, theologians and christian apologetics. the incoherence is in the interaction between the implications of the different attributes of god.
all exemple of cults of personality. all results from the same religious impulse.
"You're brainwashed"
basically, you, a christian who believes what you believes just because of the place you were born (i know your "i've been an atheist for 20 years" thing was complete BS), because you were told to believe it, and just happens to be anti gay and anti abortion (the exact same position of your church, strangely), are telling me that i am brainwashed… and do not even find it ironic… idiot…
WOW! guess what? that was just too much for me. i can't keep up with such nonsense. fuck off!
Einstein proved the time we meassure with our watches is relative, but there is an absolute time concept which isn't relative. The fact it takes a sequence of events to build a tower isn't relative. You'll never start with a pre-build tower, is illogical. Therefore, there is absolute time, the measurement of it is what is relative….
God can't possibly know what doesn't exist is illogical, no matter what anyone say. Your concept of God is indeed inexistent, but God exist, try to learn WHO HE is
""all results from the same religious impulse"" so atheism results from religious impulse? really? just try to objectively analyze what you just posted and tell me if that isn't as brainwash as anyone can get.
I was a non-believer, regardless you want to acknowledge it or not. When I was a non-believer I believed in the death penalty and freedom of choice for women. When the Holy Spirit guide us we change our points of view and tastes
time stop when you go near the center of a black hole, antiparticles go backwards in time, time doesnt even exist before space exist. there is many reason why this analogy with the tower doesnt make sense.
"You'll never start with a pre-build tower, is illogical. Therefore, there is absolute time"
lets ignore 1 seconds just how much the "therefore" looks absurd in this situation. i just have to reverse the direction of the second law of thermodinamic n a prebuild tower would indeed be deconstructed. the entropy of the system would reduces over time instead of increasing, and time would go backward.
you really pulled this notion of absolute time out of your ass, where it should have remained.
"When the Holy Spirit guide us we change our points of view and tastes"
"When we are being brainwashed we change our points of view and tastes"
One more time, the meassure of time as we know it is relative, but events follow sequences. You can't exist before you were born under any circunstance. You are watching too many science fiction movies….
True, also when you eat avocado you fart, but farting doesn't necessarily mean you ate avocado….
Your schoolard logic is the reason why you can't see, open your eyes….
A particle destroyed can't put itself together in a backward event. Sequences of events follow just one direction. That direction could appear to move faster or slower, depending on where the subject is, but is unidirectional. If you travel at the speed of light your time will be slowed down but you can't go back to see the day you were born.
"Sequences of events follow just one direction"
steven weinberg won a nobel price for demonstrating than that is not always the case but hey! what do they know?! nothing compared to a genius like you. now that you have began debating science which you can't possibly understand, i'm done with you. bye. you will have to call weinburg tell him why he is wrong and maybe you'll get a nobel price too. i'm done with tower analogy trying to disprove particle physic. no more!
The price was awarded ""for their contributions to the theory of the unified weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, including, inter alia, the prediction of the weak neutral current"" Stop making stuff up. Throw away your book and stop watching foolish atheists videos.
i guess weinburg was lying when he was himself talking about it…
Provide a reference so we can discuss it. Maybe he was stating a personal opinion, not explaining the reason for the price.
Am I wrong or did he just completely ignore the question and ramble on about his definition of faith and other unimportant stuff?
Not only is "Intelligent Design" an immoral argument, it's clearly fraud.
I'll tell you what is an immoral argument. The atheist argument "Appearance of Design" The huge complexity of living structures is discovered more in detail every day. and the probability that it all came about through random chance becomes less and less likely every day. And the more this happens the more they push the idea of "Appearance of Design"
That term should mean that (living systems and also the non living universe) only on the surface have a design appearance, but when more closely studied this would be found not to be the case, WHEN THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. The more they are studied the more complexity is discovered, and the less likelihood of it all coming about through random chance is revealed.
And the more this happens the more they push the fallacy concept of "Appearance of Design"
That is an immoral argument.
John Haught seems to be ignoring that the religion is in the people, not the "theologians".
is anyone else not hearing the audio?