21 Sep 2010
In this RSA Event with the New Humanist Magazine Marilynne Robinson, Roger Scruton, Jonathan Rée and Laurie Taylor ask: should the debate over the role of religion in society take a different tone?
Download the video (mp4)
How to download a video
If your browser is Internet Explorer: Right-click the link to the video and choose 'Save Target As'.If your browser is Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome: Right-click the link to the video and choose 'Save Link As'.
(Need help viewing this file?)
You are welcome to link to, download, save or distribute our audio/video files electronically. Find out more about our open access licence.
Video file hosting and streaming is provided by GroovyGecko
Share
Humza - 28 Oct 2011 6:10pm
The lady brought in an interesting point, namely that mind is central in the understanding of being. Science, clearly, attempts to understand being. But if mind is central to any understanding of being, then it will underpin even science, and even the science of the brain. What she is saying, then, is that the fundament, the ground upon which stand science and other methods of inquiring into being, is the mind. However, she can go further and say 'experience' or more aptly subjectivity. It is the subject which understands, has a brain, can be deluded, acts politically, makes art, becomes engaged, &c &c &c. Reading the comments, it appears that the hardline scientists are unappreciative of the very profound nature of this notion: that subjective experience grounds and encapsulates inquiries into being....
Dave - 06 Jan 2011 9:01pm
This lady is incoherent.
Christophe - 05 Jan 2011 11:58am
As I Listened to these people, it dawned that they fundamentally lack the insight in what science does and how plausible reasoning operates: In the light of the data, we look how plausible each proposed theory/model is (using probability calculus). Redundant statements (i.e. that don't add up to the explanation of the facts) are discarded, and experiments are divised with maximal information value in it (testing limits, or rival hypotheses). Up to now, no God can be found in all the most plausible theories/models. As keeping room for an implausible God is always possible: Let them have it. I cannot disprove something that does not exist.
The Reverent Ross Hamilton Henry, Humanist Minister - 04 Jan 2011 8:51pm
I think that it is a sign that supernaturalistic religion fits into the category that emerged toward the end of this debate: "A majority cult that is in the down slope of the curve illustrating its history in the west"-- that is that it is in process of dying" And the bold atheists who are speaking out to help free our minds from the tyranny of the industry of priests and authoritarian preachers will soon be joining the ranks of the unemployed. The 3 people you had on this panel, even the reluctant atheist, did not utter a single word supporting a single idea of the supernaturalistic underpinnings upon which the vast majority of religion is based. The whole thing seemed to me mostly an attempt to redefine "science" to make room for people to continue to cling to their beloved delusions and avoid the excommunication of these 3 particular apologists from the ranks of the faithful in the minds of the broader culture that they continue to defend.
Adrian Clark - 02 Dec 2010 11:07pm
How can you have anti-atheism from humanists?
Philip - 12 Nov 2010 7:25pm
A great disappointment. Just a great deal of atheist bashing. From the title "After New Atheism ....", I was hoping for a discussion of the future direction of the atheist movement or at least some discussion of the future of the God/No God debate. What I heard was a regurgitation of a lot of backward looking anti-atheistic arguments. A poor showing.