New Documentary Chronicles Road Tripping Scientists Promoting Reason 674
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Dennis Overbye reports in the NY Times that two years ago Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss set off on a barnstorming tour to save the world from religion and promote science. Their adventure is now the subject of The Unbelievers, a new documentary. 'If you think a road trip with a pair of intellectuals wielding laptops is likely to lack drama, you haven't been keeping up with the culture wars,' writes Overbye. The scientists are mobbed at glamorous sites like the Sydney Opera House. Inside, they sometimes encounter clueless moderators; outside, demonstrators condemning them to hellfire. At one event, a group of male Muslim protesters are confronted by counterprotesters chanting, 'Where are your women?' 'Travelogue shots, perky editing and some popular rock music, as well as interview bits with such supportive celebrities as Woody Allen, Cameron Diaz, Sarah Silverman and Ricky Gervais, shrewdly enliven the brainy — but accessible — discourse,' writes Gary Goldstein in the LA Times, 'but mostly the movie is an enjoyably high-minded love fest between two deeply committed intellectuals and the scads of atheists, secularists, free-thinkers, skeptics and activists who make up their rock star-like fan base.' The movie ends at the Reason Rally in Washington, billed as the largest convention of atheists in history. Dawkins looks out at the crowd standing in a light rain and pronounces it 'the most incredible sight I can remember ever seeing' and declares that too many people have been cowed out of coming out as atheists, secularists or agnostics. 'We are far more numerous than anybody realizes.'"
Re:Not in netflix amazon prime (Score:5, Informative)
December 13-19, 2013: Quad Cinemas 34 West 13th Street New York City, NY (212) 255-8800
News on Blu-ray/DVD/iTunes/Netflix/VOD coming soon.
Re:save us from *all* pseudo-science (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot [wikipedia.org]
Hard to explain it much better than that...
Re:Dawkins OK with torrents, so please seed! (Score:4, Informative)
Comments say it's just an interview, not the actual film. Just a heads up.
Re:If they are SO REALLY CONCERN about religion .. (Score:5, Informative)
Hope this helps [cbsnews.com]. Here [pewresearch.org] is some more. Think we can find similar numbers for any other religion?
Re:I'm an atheist. (Score:4, Informative)
You may not support criticizing others for unjustifiable beliefs, but consider that the religious people who represent you in government essentially believe in unicorns and faeries. It's more than a little troubling that the people with so much power have such flawed reasoning.
You can't. But you can say with certainty that their beliefs are completely unjustifiable, and they have no legitimate, rational reason to believe them. And that's what atheism is. You have quite a distorted view of what atheist proponents like Dawkins actually do and say.
They never say that "the Christian god certainly does not exist", they only say, "the Christian god ALMOST certainly does not exist". In other words, the probability that such a deity exists is negligable for many, many reasons.
Re:save us from *all* pseudo-science (Score:4, Informative)
That's incorrect. Dawkins has acknowledged many times that deities could exist, but we have no reason to believe in them (empirical or a priori). Any such insults are directed at the arguments of people who profess to have such a legitimate reason to believe in a particular deity. And he's right to. Such arguments are invariably foolish at best.
Re:If they are SO REALLY CONCERN about religion .. (Score:4, Informative)
I did a quick search and found this saying 40%:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
Re:I'm an atheist. (Score:4, Informative)
> That's fine for you, but I'm gay, and the overwhelming majority of arguments against my freedom and rights have religion at their base.
That may be technically true, but do keep this in mind: The Soviet Union under Stalin -- officially atheistic (and he would gleefully kill you to DEATH if you even suggested otherwise) (yes, my tongue is in cheek -- partially) -- persecuted gays and lesbians FAR worse than the United States ever has. Stalin and Co. considered it a "bourgeois affectation" and killed them by the trainload.
To this day, the Russian Federation continues to restrict gay and lesbian rights ... again, far more so than the supposedly "Christian" United States. Putin's argument has nothing to do with religion, either.
I understand your frustration, but be careful about believing (yes, I chose that word deliberately -- heh) bromides and truisms simply because of that frustration.
Re:I'm an atheist. (Score:4, Informative)
most religions don't believe god is magical, space-dwelling, or grant-wishing
Can't speak for Sikhs and Buddhists with any degree of confidence, but certainly many Christians believe God performs miracles ('magical') and answers prayers ('grant-wishing'). We often refer to outer space as "The Heavens," which is, apparently, where God hangs out.
Re:Hate comes in many forms (Score:3, Informative)
Just because you can't explain an event doesn't make it supernatural or religious.. that just makes it unexplainable.
Re:Hate comes in many forms (Score:4, Informative)
Science tells me that its understand of the laws of physics stops at a black hole's singularity? Does that mean I disbelieve the singularity exists because science has no way of describing the singularity?
It means you don't make any factual claims about the nature of the singularity that you can't support with an evidence based model. We can say it exists, because the model we built to fit the actual observations we made predicts that it does. There are no such models that predict the existance of a God.
Superstring theory tells me that 10 dimensions of spacetime exist and bosonic string theory 26. Is it then possible that, if true, we can't (yet? ever?) comprehend events or life that takes place beyond our 3 dimensions of existence or that events from these dimensions can affect the reality of ours?
If the events inside those dimensions affect us, we can measure the effect. So far, all effects measured have followed fairly simple rules, at least on the relevant scales. There's no room for miracles in a world ruled by mathematical physics.
Why is it when we speak of entangled quantum particles separated by billions of miles affecting each other instantaneously as a valid theory
Because there is experimental evidence for quantum entanglement. Just because you find the reasoning incomprehensible doesn't mean that everything incomprehensible is equally valid.
yet the very real experiences a significant amount of humanity have had and can only explain that it was God (does it matter that they call that experience Buddha, Jesus, Marduk, or Zeus?) as ignorant ramblings?
Further, there is no experience any human has had that can only be explained as God. Trancendental experiences are simply altered states of mind, a slightly different configuration of the biological computer in our head. Trancendental experiences are no more evidence of God than schizophrenia is evidence of the devil.
That is, why exactly hasn't religion gone away after all this time?
Because it's a meme with a lot of selective advantages. None of which have to do with it being true.
Personally, I choose to keep a more open mind to possible explanations of reality than Dawkins and (insert religious fundamentalist figurehead here) choose to.
Do you think anyone would have come up with wave particle duality if scientists weren't open minded? We're willing to consider anything, if there's evidence. If there's no evidence, then why waste your time?
Re:If they are SO REALLY CONCERN about religion .. (Score:5, Informative)
Dawkins isn't primarily trying to convert believers into atheists; he's trying to level the playing field so that it is as acceptable to criticise or even mock a religious or otherwise superstitious belief as it is to criticise or mock a political belief or any other kind. He is also trying to raise opposition to the institutional legislative advantages religion, particularly the Church of England, has in government, such as the seats in the House of Lords which are automatically assigned to CoE bishops, and to end the practice of governmental support of faith schools.
He's also made it quite plain that he doesn't dislike "religious people" in general - he is in fact close personal friends with many, including prominent bishops and other clerics.
Re:I'm an atheist. (Score:4, Informative)
Certainly, Atheism has no formal organization, but neither do many religions (see also "Wicca" as an example), so that cannot be a usable guideline. But there is even more damning evidence here: Atheism does have "saints" and "preachers" (e.g. Mr. Dawkins), it does have a dogma (centered around a fairly particular definition of "reason" as its central coda, I believe, yes?), and it certainly have its zealots (oftentimes more irritating than Mormon/JV missionaries, truth be told.) Also, they seem to have the same smug self-assurance that many religious folks carry.
Only religious people think Dawkins is a preacher or a saint. You'll find Atheists that disagree with him and you'll find he'll happily debate with them.
You cant do that to a Christian preacher.
Further more, there is no code nor dogma. A lot of theists who dont understand what atheism is try to ascribe these things to atheism but only demonstrate their own ignorance. You cant really blame atheists from getting upset here, they're a diverse group of people with no common beliefs and you're trying to shoehorn them into a box that doesn't fit because someone who is atheist does not fit your world views. It's like if I were to say that all theists were kitten eating Hitler worshippers because I know this one guy who believes in god and who may or may not have eaten a kitten and has a picture that looks a bit like Hitler if I squinted at it.
But I wouldn't say that because I know how ridiculous it sounds and oddly enough, it's more sensible than your argument. That is the kind of wisdom that reason gives me, not a blind belief in a greater power but the ability to figure things out for myself.
No, Religion is a belief, atheism is the lack of belief. To use the old example, to say atheism is a religion is to say that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Atheism describes a lack or absence of theism. this is a very large area that covers everyone from non-religious to Buddhists and leVeyan Satanists. The only thing in common is that they dont believe in god but have radically different philosophies.