Sex, Death & The Meaning of Life (BBC Richard Dawkins on Youtube)

Episode 1:



Bro told me about this video today, that he had coincidentally found while browsing Youtube. He watched an episode (he didn't know there were 3 episodes) and described it to me.

I'm not sure which episode he watched but not episode 1.

He said the interviewers (in the episode he watched) said the same thing as I said.  That Ricky Gervais said what gets you up in the morning is anything that you feel you need to get up for. People you love, doing gardening...  things that are meaningful to you.

Bro said when he heard what people said in the video, he thought, "How come it sounds so cowish?".  (Cowish refers to me)

In our discussions sometimes, we have also talked about the meaning of life and religion.  Personally, I have also wondered what would happen if religion was erased.

So, this BBC show is interesting. I've tried reading Richard Dawkins book in the past, about his Big Bang Theory and other stuff, but considered the style too boring.

Now in this video, I see him "in person".  He posits that Science and Evolutionary behavior will work better than Religion in guiding us to being better (more civilised, advanced etc..).

I just finished watching Episode 1:

Richard Dawkins says that other people tell him:
"If we don't believe God is watching over us, we abandon morality". 

My thought:   It's a very simplistic and unthinking comment by people who say that. It is a mistake to equate "god" with morality.

Moreover, religion is evil. Read the book God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

Also, religious people are actually no better than non-religious people.

Here Richard Dawkins also finds out that "not only does religion fail to stop people sinning, it also forces them to live a lie.".

The only difference between religious and non-religious people is the guilt that non-religious people are made to feel when it comes to "sin" such as sex and masturbation which are in fact inevitable biological processes.

Societies use religion to pressure people, in essence blackmailing them, in doing what the society wants rather than for the genuine good of the individual. The individual is then forced to live a lie in order to protect himself/herself and loved ones.

Actually, I don't get why that adulterous man got married and then went back to his old ways. If he wanted to play, why get married? It's not like he's going to change after marriage. He probably thought he would, but he didn't and he "broke down" because he couldn't change himself.

To "change" himself, he had to contract it out to "God".  In essence, absolving himself of the responsibility of doing it himself, which means he's basically just an irresponsible man. What's there to feel guilty for?

After contracting it out to "god", he is "cured/fixed" and can give seminars. -.-   An irresponsible man giving seminars to other irresponsible men. He should be feeling guilty for that.

Secondly: That gay man says,  "... a measure of respect for homosexuals. I thought if I was very lucky, I could stop the police impersonating gays in order to pick people up in public lavatories and then prosecute them".

My question is: If those gay men weren't loose/promiscuous in the first place, would the police have succeeded in picking them up?

I think Richard Dawkins is too naively optimistic. Even if we are getting "more civilised" as religion declines.

He says, "We now live in a rational age". Really? He needs to read the article in Discover magazine on the secret that only a few evolutionary scientists know: Our brains have shrunk and how much stupidier we are getting. Not even the geneticists know this and were surprised when presented with the information.

Richard Dawkins should also watch the movie Idiocracy.

Previously, bro and I had discussed a few times about whether humans would be better in the future. Will mankind one day reach the Picard stage? (Picard of the 24th century Star Trek the Next Generation Starship Enterprise).

Bro remained adamant that we would not; I was optimistic that given time, humans would be better.

Bro said, "Look around you. People are not getting better, but worse.". He is of the opinion that it will degenerate rather than improve.

Because I look forward to a brighter future, I hope humans will become better. It is only a little sad that we won't be there to see it. But Bro said he wouldn't want to be there because that's the time when things will be much worse than the present.

We have had this argument/debate a few times already and no conclusion could be drawn.

While I believe religion is not necessary, I could not come up with a solution or alternative to replace it. In this video, Dawkins has provided me the solution:   Our innate evolutionary traits such as empathy, and what we feel is right and wrong will serve as our guide.

Bro is of the opinion that humans need religion otherwise they would feel hopeless. To know that there is no meaning, no higher purpose than just to live and die would shatter them.

When we were talked about the Venus Project  as Bro described it to me (when I wished money was abolished), he was of the opinion that there must be some form of control/replacement otherwise all hell would break loose.  Bro thinks the idea won't work (but I think it will depending on how it's handled).

I am of the same opinion as Dawkins that not all hell would break loose, because we are not simply animals. We are animals but have control and freedom of choice over ourselves as compared to other animals that do not have such a luxury.

I believe in a self-governance which Bro thinks will not work. In my opinion, we don't need religion to tell us what is right and wrong. Parents only need to teach and discipline their kids the right way: empathy, consideration, observation. It has nothing to do with religion.

In the video, the black man used his belief in his religion to discipline the boys. He said without this religion, where is the power?

The power, is actually, in you and in everyone. There is no need to invoke something "greater" to subdue the "weak". What that black man is doing works on the boys, keeping them in control, but I think Dawkins knows but cannot say, that the method is actually wrong.

I am of the same opinion that it's wrong, but Bro said it's the only thing that works in such a place. Whatever works. We cannot say they are stupid (though actually, I think it was useless for Dawkins to talk to black people with their obviously fixed religious mentality).

I think it's only a person who can see on either side of a fine line, that can see that it's wrong. Sensitive perception. I am a little surprised that Dawkins could see it. It must have been hard for him to talk to that black man. Antagonizing especially when the man broke in while Dawkins was in the middle of talking.

Credit goes to Dawkins who didn't even fold his arms across his chest.  A very accepting man.
=================

Later at night. 10:08 pm

Bro: (in his room) Can it be he's too smart?
Me:  Hm? (in my room across his, surfing skincare Taiwan website)
Bro: That's why he asks what's the meaning of Life.
Me: Because he's an astronomer. When he looks up at the beauty of the stars, he thinks what's the meaning. When he looks up at the stars, then looks back down, he thinks.
Bro: So. The moral of the story is: Don't look up. Is it? (he chuckles. I smile and type this gem). 

Earlier before this above:

Bro:  He's "Sir", you know? He's knighted.
Me: (in the toilet in the master bedroom) Yah lah, "Sir".  Sir Richard Dawkins. Now I remember he's knighted. Knighted for dryness.