Bigotry: Yes or No? Dawkins and Voting for a Mormon

[9-10ths_Penguin]

“What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question." - Dawkins.

Anyone who doesn't understand that it is wrong to commit genocide is evil in my opinion. I don't know how anyone would subscribe to the political opinions of someone who does not question Hitler's leadership abilities.

Could you provide the context for that quote?

Seeing how he's had no problem unequivocally condemning Hitler's actions on other occasions, I suspect that you may be cherry-picking to make it sound like he said something he didn't.

 

[jarofthoughts]

“What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question." - Dawkins.

Anyone who doesn't understand that it is wrong to commit genocide is evil in my opinion.

Oh, I'm quite sure that Dawkins in no way supports genocide, and does not, in fact, even support a Darwininan society (not that that was what Hitler proposed).
However, he is indeed correct that the above question can be difficult to answer in a satisfactory manner provided one realizes that there is no absolute objective morality.
We all agree that Hitler was wrong (I assume :sarcastic ), however, when presenting logical arguments for or against something, just stating that someone is wrong is a poor argument.

I don't know how anyone would subscribe to the political opinions of someone who does not question Hitler's leadership abilities.

That depends on what you mean by 'leadership qualities'.
Hitler was unquestionable charismatic, had a sense of timing, and the ability to attract skillful underlings.
Granted, he did go more or less stark raving mad at the end of the war, but to say that the man never possessed leadership abilities seems faulty.
Again, no-one is arguing that what he did with those abilities weren't horrible and disgusting.

One can also easily point to the stories of genocide commanded and/or carried out by certain deities in various religious doctrine, but I understand how difficult it is to look at one's spokesperson as anything but right or righteous.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
If you're indicating that those arguing in favor of Dawkins' stance think of him as infallible, then you are mistaken.
I, for one, disagree with Dawkins on a number of issues, having been a regular at the forums on his site for as long as it still had a forum.
But all of that is beside the point: an argument should stand on its own merits, or fall because of a lack of the same.
The argument is either valid and correct, or it is not.
And in that context, the source of the argument is largely irrelevant.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
If you're indicating that those arguing in favor of Dawkins' stance think of him as infallible, then you are mistaken.
I, for one, disagree with Dawkins on a number of issues, having been a regular at the forums on his site for as long as it still had a forum.
But all of that is beside the point: an argument should stand on its own merits, or fall because of a lack of the same.
The argument is either valid and correct, or it is not.
And in that context, the source of the argument is largely irrelevant.

I was being precocious, and turning the tables onto believers who think nothing of genocide actually being told as a good thing in their doctrine.

As some people are aware of on these forums, I'm a firm supporter of Dawkins and I applaud much of what he offers.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Could you provide the context for that quote?

Seeing how he's had no problem unequivocally condemning Hitler's actions on other occasions, I suspect that you may be cherry-picking to make it sound like he said something he didn't.

The source is from a blog written by a Christian who went to interview Dawkins in Oxford at his home. He apparently is quoted as saying so, but there are things left out in context that surrounded the conversation and his point where the quote was mentioned.

In no way did I get the impression that he suggested we rethink the morality of the Third Reich. I saw it as a rhetorical strategy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A recent quote from Richard Dawkins and his twitter in reference to the Curiosity landing:



So, is it bigotry, or not, to claim that half of Americans are worthy of condemnation simply because they are considering voting for a Mormon?

I'm not sure how I feel about what I'm about to say, so I'll just throw it out there for discussion:

To me, bigotry in this sort of situation would be to base a decision about someone on factors that are irrelevant. For instance, a candidate's gender wouldn't have any bearing on their qualifications to be President, so refusing to vote for a woman, or condemning people because they would consider voting for a woman, would be bigoted.

Now... with religion, though, many (most?) religious people claim that their religious beliefs inform the fundamental foundations of their worldview... that it forms part of the basis of every decision they make.

It seems to me that declaring that religious discrimination is necessarily bigotry implies that religious beliefs are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. OTOH, the religious beliefs themselves declare that they pervade everything and are always relevant to any situation.

IOW, when we say that religious discrimination is unacceptable, aren't we implicitly saying that religious beliefs don't matter?

Is there a conflict here? Am I reading this incorrectly?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I was being precocious, and turning the tables onto believers who think nothing of genocide actually being told as a good thing in their doctrine.

As some people are aware of on these forums, I'm a firm supporter of Dawkins and I applaud much of what he offers.

Ah.
Sorry for misunderstanding you.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Ah.
Sorry for misunderstanding you.

No biggie.

You owe me 20 pushups though.

 

[gnomon]

“What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question." - Dawkins.

Anyone who doesn't understand that it is wrong to commit genocide is evil in my opinion. I don't know how anyone would subscribe to the political opinions of someone who does not question Hitler's leadership abilities.

Question Hitler's leadership abilities?

It's quite obvious that Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Charlemagne, Cromwell and numerous others whose actions and decisions led to deaths of many of others or their own people actually possessed strong leadership qualities.

Strong leadership qualities does not equal goodness as defined by your moral code. Strong leadership is measured by the willingness of others to follow.

It's quite evident what Dawkins is talking about. Moral relativism.

Here's the exchange as upheld by Larry Taunton who conducted the interview.

I asked an obvious question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”


“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”


I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point.

http://byfaithonline.com/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist/
They are talking about an external source for morality. Lacking an external source for morality Dawkins is correct in stating that it's an interesting question in determining who is ultimately "right".

People who argue that culture or person X is wrong based on an external source they are essentially not arguing their own morality. They are arguing God's morality. It's God who said that it's wrong to commit genocide. Not I who is arguing it. I'm just following God's morality.

Dawkins is rightly pointing out that left to our own devices and defining our own internal morality, personal or cultural, determining who is ultimately right is an interesting question.

Fortunately, Dawkins is someone who finds genocide to be morally wrong from his own standpoint. The people who frighten me are those who argue against genocide because they, at that time, believe a God says it's wrong. Well what happens if God changes his mind. It's not just that individual but probably a whole culture that will change their belief.

Of course, the same problem still exists even without God. Because it's the overall cultural view which is what matters and moral system may be based on a spiritual external or a social contract both of which are subject to extreme changes.

 

[Katzpur]

Question Hitler's leadership abilities?

It's quite obvious that Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Charlemagne, Cromwell and numerous others whose actions and decisions led to deaths of many of others or their own people actually possessed strong leadership qualities.

Strong leadership qualities does not equal goodness as defined by your moral code. Strong leadership is measured by the willingness of others to follow.

This is true, but there are plenty of examples of people whose used their leadership qualities to better the human condition. Why specifically mention one of the most universally hated men who has ever lived?

 

[jarofthoughts]

No biggie.

You owe me 20 pushups though.

Right away MA'AM! O7

 

[jarofthoughts]

This is true, but there are plenty of examples of people whose used their leadership qualities to better the human condition. Why specifically mention one of the most universally hated men who has ever lived?

Because it gets the point across that moral relativism is a real thing.
Dawkins deals with the concept here if you want a more comprehensive take on it:

[youtube]zSYosM2ZhzY[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins Lays Into Religious Morality - YouTube

 

[gnomon]

This is true, but there are plenty of examples of people whose used their leadership qualities to better the human condition. Why specifically mention one of the most universally hated men who has ever lived?

Because that's the context of idea's post and the article that was quoted.

I think the question is why did idea think it pertinent to pull a random quote in order to paint Dawkins as thinking the Nazi's were not bad.

 

[s2a]

The answer is simple. When Nazi's and/or Hitler are produced as part of any argument, "Godwin's Law" takes effect immediately, and the opposing position wins by default.

 

[PolyHedral]

Even when talking about foodstuffs?

 

[Tbone]

Because it gets the point across that moral relativism is a real thing.
Dawkins deals with the concept here if you want a more comprehensive take on it:

[youtube]zSYosM2ZhzY[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins Lays Into Religious Morality - YouTube

This poor guy doesn't have a clue.

 

[Sunstone]

This poor guy doesn't have a clue.

He seemed mostly on target to me. In what way do you suppose he doesn't have a clue? And could you back your opinion up with reason?

 

[tempter]

A recent quote from Richard Dawkins and his twitter in reference to the Curiosity landing:



So, is it bigotry, or not, to claim that half of Americans are worthy of condemnation simply because they are considering voting for a Mormon?

I know Mormons. I've dated Mormons. I've been in long term relationships with Mormons. I've worked with Mormons. And here's what I've gotten from my experience:
Mormons are wonderful people - until you disagree with them on their beliefs. Then you're on "their list".
I don't trust Mormons past a casual friendship any farther than I could throw one (which isn't very far).
Because of my experience, I will NEVER vote for a Mormon to be in any leadership role for me. If that makes me this or that, I'm OK with it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I know Mormons. I've dated Mormons. I've been in long term relationships with Mormons. I've worked with Mormons. And here's what I've gotten from my experience:
Mormons are wonderful people - until you disagree with them on their beliefs. Then you're on "their list".
I don't trust Mormons past a casual friendship any farther than I could throw one (which isn't very far).
Because of my experience, I will NEVER vote for a Mormon to be in any leadership role for me. If that makes me this or that, I'm OK with it.

That hasn't been my experience. Online and offline, I respect them for how they maintain their beliefs while respecting the beliefs of others. It's likely because of how much crap they get for being "too Christian" or for "not being Christian enough." Maybe being on the short end of the stick reminds them that it isn't cool to judge others for what they believe or what they don't believe.

I've sat around on the front porch with them for a while when they came by to share their faith....just sitting, enjoying the weather, and them asking questions on what I believe and practice. They discovered that Buddhism isn't worshipping Buddha like a God, which they thought at first that it was. We learned a lot from each other.

I've found the same by and large with LDS here on the forums.

 

[Katzpur]

That hasn't been my experience. Online and offline, I respect them for how they maintain their beliefs while respecting the beliefs of others. It's likely because of how much crap they get for being "too Christian" or for "not being Christian enough." Maybe being on the short end of the stick reminds them that it isn't cool to judge others for what they believe or what they don't believe.

I've sat around on the front porch with them for a while when they came by to share their faith....just sitting, enjoying the weather, and them asking questions on what I believe and practice. They discovered that Buddhism isn't worshipping Buddha like a God, which they thought at first that it was. We learned a lot from each other.

I've found the same by and large with LDS here on the forums.

Thanks for saying so. I had kind of wanted to respond to Tempter's post myself, but it seemed kind of presumptuous of me to tell him his experience wasn't "accurate." Who knows... maybe all of the Mormons he has had anything to do with are exactly as he described. If that's the case, though, he has managed to find a whole bushel of bad apples, which is really pretty unlikely. I really appreciate your pointing out that your experience hasn't been anything like his. I really think it's more typical than his, too.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That hasn't been my experience. Online and offline, I respect them for how they maintain their beliefs while respecting the beliefs of others. It's likely because of how much crap they get for being "too Christian" or for "not being Christian enough." Maybe being on the short end of the stick reminds them that it isn't cool to judge others for what they believe or what they don't believe.

I've sat around on the front porch with them for a while when they came by to share their faith....just sitting, enjoying the weather, and them asking questions on what I believe and practice. They discovered that Buddhism isn't worshipping Buddha like a God, which they thought at first that it was. We learned a lot from each other.

I've found the same by and large with LDS here on the forums.

It has been my experience that Mormons who aren't following radical political agendas (such as those who pumped a ton of money into Prop. 8 campaigns), tend to be some of the more friendlier and tolerant Christians when compared to other denominations. They seem more likely to politely accept when people aren't interested in converting to their religion (unlike, say, the local Jehovah's Witnesses who are very persistent until you make them scared that the devil will pop out of you and steal their souls), and I rarely hear them preaching hellfire and brimstone, which puts them at a level way above many other denominations in my eyes.