ChatterBank0 min ago
Sinai Indaba
43 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
nailedit: ? why the name change?
I have been asked by a journalists & others to self-identify my religious stance & I have said I am a 'Taoist, Buddhist, Christian', there is no conflict there - if you wish to discuss that I am happy to do so. Please stop trying to be a smart a***
Also as to your //Believing in things without good evidence
and for no good reason!//
There was a chap in Germany about 250 years ago called Immanuel Kant who wrote a book called, 'Critique of Pure Reason' which did,..... well, what it says on the tin, he questioned the reliance on reason alone for the understanding of metaphysics. It was enormously influential, I suggest you give it a whirl.
I have been asked by a journalists & others to self-identify my religious stance & I have said I am a 'Taoist, Buddhist, Christian', there is no conflict there - if you wish to discuss that I am happy to do so. Please stop trying to be a smart a***
Also as to your //Believing in things without good evidence
and for no good reason!//
There was a chap in Germany about 250 years ago called Immanuel Kant who wrote a book called, 'Critique of Pure Reason' which did,..... well, what it says on the tin, he questioned the reliance on reason alone for the understanding of metaphysics. It was enormously influential, I suggest you give it a whirl.
Khandro, ok, I've watched the whole thing without falling asleep and I took notes. Having reached the end of what was a pleasantly civilised discussion, (I think I've seen it before), I really don't know what you were watching because the rabbi was no match for Dawkins. Whilst he certainly has a lot to say, his argument wasn't rational, it wasn't entirely honest, and at about the halfway point he let himself down completely by claiming Dawkins' utterly justified criticism of God's alleged morality was anti-Semitic. Dawkins won that one, Khandro…. hands down.
When asked what he taught his children Dawkins said he taught them to question everything & take nobody's word for anything (or something to that effect).
What a pathetic way to bring up a child - without a 'roadmap' to start on!
In a separate interview he has said when his daughter commented on how pretty the colours of the flowers were, he had said they weren't "pretty", they were that way in order to attract different insects.
What a glom!
What a pathetic way to bring up a child - without a 'roadmap' to start on!
In a separate interview he has said when his daughter commented on how pretty the colours of the flowers were, he had said they weren't "pretty", they were that way in order to attract different insects.
What a glom!
Khandro, you regurgitate that flower story practically every time Dawkins is mentioned. I don't know what he actually said or how accurate your claim is so if you could post some evidence it would help.
With regard to teaching his daughter to question everything, this is what he actually said to her.
//Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: ‘Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?’ And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.//
How, without questioning, have you reached your conclusions, Khandro?
I think I was right the first time. You don't want to discuss the video. You're simply Dawkins-bashing again. I don't know why you bother. That's not civilised discussion. It's just spiteful. So much for the effects of religion.
I've no idea what a glom is.
With regard to teaching his daughter to question everything, this is what he actually said to her.
//Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: ‘Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?’ And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.//
How, without questioning, have you reached your conclusions, Khandro?
I think I was right the first time. You don't want to discuss the video. You're simply Dawkins-bashing again. I don't know why you bother. That's not civilised discussion. It's just spiteful. So much for the effects of religion.
I've no idea what a glom is.
Knowing how things evolved, and that flowers and insects are interlinked in that the flowers help the insects and vice versa, does not mean that a human no longer finds flowers beautiful. Understanding more about the natural world makes it all the more impressive. The splendour and mystery of the observable universe must surely be more profound and meaningful than it was before we had telescopes and micrioscopes.
Dawkins and Feynman have both written on this theme, much better than I have. Have you read Feynman?
Dawkins and Feynman have both written on this theme, much better than I have. Have you read Feynman?
Khandro: Feynman's 'The Pleasure of Finding Out' is what I had in mind. I can't post a screenshot but here's a link so that you can you can find it on Amazon then 'read a sample'. You then need to scroll down past the introductions till you find Feynman's own writing. 'The Beauty of a Flower'.
https:/
https:/
Atheist: I do know of Feynman though I haven't read any of his books in full, I've just read your extract & it doesn't address religion, (he was a lapsed Jew, I think). He was a good scientist, perhaps if he had lived longer he might have thought like Einstein, who famously said; “The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” :0)
One of my favourite people has always been Robert Louis Stevenson.
One of the stories told of him is that one day he stopped a brute of a man from beating a dog. The man said," It's my dog!" & Stevenson said, "No it's God's dog".
One of my favourite people has always been Robert Louis Stevenson.
One of the stories told of him is that one day he stopped a brute of a man from beating a dog. The man said," It's my dog!" & Stevenson said, "No it's God's dog".
By the way, I mentioned earlier how rationalists might benefit from Kant, I don't think anyone of you will read his Critique, but here's a link to it anyway:
https:/
https:/
The Oxford philosopher, late Antony Flew, after decades as one of the world's leading academic exponents of atheism, announced a dramatic change of mind by accepting on intellectual grounds that the universe was created. Despite his eminence, he admitted to never having studied Aristotle's arguments for a First Cause in sufficient depth; his inferences had been further buttressed by reflections on science.
Among the factors accounting for this shift are the rationality inherent in all our experience of the world, consciousness, and the implications of conceptual thought. True to the maxim that an honest enquirer should follow the argument where it leads, Flew traced his evolution in his book; 'There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind' (2007).
Feynman only lived to be mere 70 I think he needed more time, Flew saw the light & lived to be 87, so don't panic, there's still time.
Among the factors accounting for this shift are the rationality inherent in all our experience of the world, consciousness, and the implications of conceptual thought. True to the maxim that an honest enquirer should follow the argument where it leads, Flew traced his evolution in his book; 'There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind' (2007).
Feynman only lived to be mere 70 I think he needed more time, Flew saw the light & lived to be 87, so don't panic, there's still time.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.