OUTGROWING GOD? Commentary on Richard Dawkins interview with Joe Rogan

Not to mention "narcissism of the small difference". "The narcissism of small differences (German: der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen) is the thesis that communities with adjoining territories and close relationships are especially likely to engage in feuds and mutual ridicule because of hypersensitivity to details of differentiation.[1]" (Wikipedia)

Outgrowing Dawkins, more like! 😂

Even tho a monk/priest might go in full abstinence he could use is role to help family bloom and technically reproduce.

You need to go on Joe Rogan

The fact that Dawkins does not understand religious excess (here, flagellation) is itself perfectly understandable. Religious excess in its ascetic form is, I think, only coherent under a model of extra-rational communication, not inductive scientific rationality. It is an attempt to break with precisely that mode of thought: the “profane” (I’m thinking of Bataille here), in order to reach the sacred or divine through a communication with the base level of human experience (fallenness). In this anguish it may be the case that we can more “accurately” come into contact with the ecstasies of the sacred or divine, as 1) if you’re a Christian you believe that the anguish of death and the ecstasy of heaven was brought together on the cross, therefore one might wish to reenact this abasement in order to commune with the suffering of Christ and the love of God, or 2) and this is more general: religions tend to see this world as being inferior to the divine world, therefore religious“extremism” wishes to negate the flesh in order to come in contact with the divine Will contra the will of the individual (this is anathema to the ideologies of modernity, which are predicated upon what Badiou terms “democratic materialism” and pseudo-individualism). Or, 3) this one is more Bataillean: one might wish to bring oneself low through psychological excess (transgression, which is of course the opposite of typical religious excess) so that one can move closer to the base, universal condition of humanity (suffering, “fallenness”) in order to become at once larger than oneself and annihilated as an “individual”, if only for a fleeting moment. This is may be the only way to truly “communicate” with that condition from which we come (the eternal struggle of existence) and that Entity (Humanity/History) of which we are a part.

There is logic to all of this. It makes sense once you familiarize yourself with the doctrines. Dawkins’ main problem is his refusal to actually understand their doctrines in any real scholarly depth, and his refusal to think that perhaps there is something beyond science that is actually profound, even if technically “incorrect”. Yet, of course, science itself tends towards symbolic incompleteness, but it seems at this point that Dawkins could never truly understand that simple fact, or rather he could never see it for what it is. Instead he takes he naïvely optimistic route: “science will figure it out”, which of course fails to understand the fundamental problem in that line of dogmatism.

Lacan et. al goes to great lengths to show that in no way can human psychology/sexuality be reduced to biology. This was part of Freud's great discovery.
Dawkins is as ideological as any religious zealot.

Funny how hard line scientific reductionists believe thoroughly in the idea of a teleological moral progress. They really don't realise when their own views are entirely metaphysical/ideological ect.

Why don’t anybody think that my heaven easily could be your hell. It’s a subjective point of view.

Is that guy on drugs

Let’s start a debate.. I’m against atheists

sorry, I don't know why my comment got published three times

sorry, I don't know why my comment got published three times

Rene Girard's mimetic desire may help here.

Really? Nothing bothers me more than listening to some one with more seal than knowledge.better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.psycobabble at best.respect the teacher grasshopper.

Ps.looking at all the other comments it's funny most discredit Richard as not educated enough on religion yet none of the people commenting has published taught or anywhere the degree of knowledge of Richard or credentials.blowhards.

dawkins is evolutionary biologist. why do you want him to comment on neuroscience and psychology, although it seems that you understand the issue.

The dislikes aren't only coming from militant atheists. I've watched the first 9 minutes and it's clear that you're not really interested in listening to what Dawkins has to say. The "psychological reason" you're discussing is very clearly something else than what Dawkins is referring to. And then comes the wild speculation on the phrase "biological ring", which, if you want to really engage with Dawkins charitably and fruitfully here, should be understood in a sociobiological way (if you really want to go on a tangent based on a single off-handedly mentioned phrase), because, as you quite rightly point out, it doesn't make sense in the light of "pure" evolutionary biology. I don't know if the rest of the video is like that, but I'm not willing to devote an hour to find out.

Has every one forgotten that Dawkins said to his followers that its ok if a stranger sticks his hands down your childrens pants because its just mild petophilia and you should not cause a fuss over it..and that if a woman does not abort a Downs baby then she is immoral?

People believed in religion because they were stupid, scared of death and delusional and we are still living with the consequences of their stupidity. easy!

Don’t listen to this guy just watch the original video and come up with you own conclusion do we really need someone to explain a conversation between two guys

Well we know that when your brain is functioning, you're conscious. And when your brain is not functioning, you're not conscious. So idk where you think it comes from but so far that's science's and philosophy's best answer.