Dawkins on Christian Inconsistency...

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Dawkins, it seems, holds the curious belief that religion may easily be dismissed by invoking science, but science and religion are not talking about similar things.

... any more. And even then, most believers haven't got the message.

I think the worldview you're offering is a revisionist perspective. It's a response to the problem that religion has proved spectactularly unreliable for the many claims it has made throughout history: rather than acknowledge these failures, you pretend that the claims were never made at all, or were never important.

In reality, religion is still chock-full of factual claims. Take Hell, which Monk of Reason touched on: it's common nowadays to say that Hell isn't a literal lake of fire, but those same believers who say that the fire and brimstone is a metaphor still generally argue that our souls still literally persist after death. This claim that we can continue beyond the death of our physical bodies in a form that can be legitimately called "us" is a claim that's definitely within the scope of science... and it's one that neuroscience is making less and less plausible.

As his crony Christopher Hitchens claimed in God Is Not Great "thanks to the telescope and the microscope religion no longer offers an explanation of anything important". Wow!
As Terry Eagleton has pointed out, religion was never meant to be an explanation of anything in the first place. It is rather like saying that thanks to the invention of the microwave oven we no longer need Beethoven.

No, it's not. It's like being confronted with a microwave and only then pretending that you kept the old stove because of the sounds it made.

 

[Windwalker]

But he would be incorrect on that statement. Do not commit the same error you accuse him of. Don't pidgeonhole God.

How in the world is this pigeonholing God? Religion historically has not been about offering scientific proof to prove God's existence. That's a modern phenomenon that fundamentalists do to try to compete with modern science. It has nothing to do with God.

God is a fluid concept which may or may not be a matter of scientific verification depending on how it is interpreted.

I would say that if one conceives of God as an external object, some creature like a Yeti or an E.T., then it is a matter of scientific inquiry and Dawkins is right in saying no evidence for this special creature exists, like that proverbial flying teapot of his. Furthermore, even from a religious point of view as a symbol God ceases to be God when it is a made a matter of scientific discovery. It brings the transcendent to nature, as an object within nature, separate from all other individuals, like a dog or a cat except with wings and seven eyes. But that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

[Windwalker]

I chose Islam because it was more calming, the people treated me with respect and dignity regardless of my beliefs at the time, and because it involves meditation.

Islam includes meditation? You mean the Sufis? I'm not aware there is any meditation as a standard practice outside of them in Islam.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How in the world is this pigeonholing God? Religion historically has not been about offering scientific proof to prove God's existence. That's a modern phenomenon that fundamentalists do to try to compete with modern science. It has nothing to do with God.

No - traditionally, God's existence didn't need proving; it was just taken as a given and arguments to the contrary were suppressed.

I would say that if one conceives of God as an external object, some creature like a Yeti or an E.T., then it is a matter of scientific inquiry and Dawkins is right in saying no evidence for this special creature exists, like that proverbial flying teapot of his.

I think you're complicating things needlessly. Science doesn't need God to be an "external object" to examine him; it just needs for him to have real effects on physical things.

I suppose there are some theists who believe in such a god, but they're definitely a slim minority, so I don't think Dawkins shouldbe faulted for addressing mainstream views.

Furthermore, even from a religious point of view as a symbol God ceases to be God when it is a made a matter of scientific discovery.

How so?

 

[Windwalker]

Let me see, it explains : how our world/universe came to be, the reason for our suffering, the source of morality, the nature of our existence ( consciousness included ), why miracles happen, paranormal phenomena, what happens after death...

These are the ones I can think of at this moment. I am fairly certain there are at least a few more...

And what language does it use to speak of these origins of things? Scientific language? Is the intention of these stories that it uses as a vehicle to communicate truths (mythology), the same intention as the language of science? Aren't the stories about something other than trying to explain the actual mechanics, but rather to tell a truth about human experience using symbolic language, such as the Garden of Eden and the Fall of man? Do you honestly believe it was about a scientific inquiry on the parts of those authors and those cultures?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what language does it use to speak of these origins of things? Scientific language? Is the intention of these stories that it uses as a vehicle to communicate truths (mythology), the same intention as the language of science? Aren't the stories about something other than trying to explain the actual mechanics, but rather to tell a truth about human experience using symbolic language, such as the Garden of Eden and the Fall of man? Do you honestly believe it was about a scientific inquiry on the parts of those authors and those cultures?

I think it's a mistake to treat mythology and science as completely independent.

Mythology communicates importance and significance, but if a myth says "X is important to our religion/culture/whatever" and the science says "X doesn't exist", then the science is relevant to the mythology.

 

[Windwalker]

No - traditionally, God's existence didn't need proving; it was just taken as a given and arguments to the contrary were suppressed.

Well, that certainly is a cynical revision of history. I don't think that holds up however to scrutiny.

I think you're complicating things needlessly. Science doesn't need God to be an "external object" to examine him; it just needs for him to have real effects on physical things.

Which makes it an external object. Science only examines "things". It only examines objects, things it can see or measure in some way. How can you see or measure something that is everything and no-thing at the same time? The only way to measure God, or the Absolute, or the Infinite, is to reduce it to something that is an object outside oneself one can examine.

I suppose there are some theists who believe in such a god, but they're definitely a slim minority, so I don't think Dawkins shouldbe faulted for addressing mainstream views.

When he broad-brushes strokes all of religion from his extremely narrow, extremely limited and sophomoric understanding of religion, yes he can and should be faulted. He doesn't even understand the nature of his main target of fundamentalist thought. He just sees is a "bad science", or failed reason rather than have any actual, useful depth to draw from.

A friend of mine in his PhD program in philosophy said, "I just wish Dawkins wouldn't do his whole ExChristian thing on the world scene". That struck me because in effect, that's all it is. It's just "Religion is BS!!", which has it's place in public discourse, but not serious discussions that matters on a constructive level about understanding religion. It's just as fundamentalist as those who say the reason for social ills is because they don't go to church! It's truly unfortunate people see him as authoritative on the subject. He isn't any more then Ken Ham is on evolution.

 

[Windwalker]

I think it's a mistake to treat mythology and science as completely independent.

Mythology communicates importance and significance, but if a myth says "X is important to our religion/culture/whatever" and the science says "X doesn't exist", then the science is relevant to the mythology.

I won't disagree with this. I think how I would put it is that it takes all aspects of knowledge to make up and inform the whole. I rebuff against those who say science can replace religion this way, for the same reasons I rebuff against those who say "God's Word", or religious authority trumps science. Both are bad reasoning.

I believe what we know of the natural world through science can inform how our mythologies speak to us and become relevant. And I believe as we develop the inner person through spiritual development, it will inform us about what our scientific inquiries say. There is in fact an inescapable interplay between these interior and exterior pursuits that constitute the whole person. To chuck out the baby of the spiritual with the bathwater of mythic-literal interpretations in favor of some scientific rationalism is equally as ill-fitting the person as anti-intellectualism is.

 

[Koldo]

How in the world is this pigeonholing God? Religion historically has not been about offering scientific proof to prove God's existence. That's a modern phenomenon that fundamentalists do to try to compete with modern science. It has nothing to do with God.

The notion that God's existence can be verified by looking at the natural world is nothing new. You can check how long ago the teleological argument was formulated.

I would say that if one conceives of God as an external object, some creature like a Yeti or an E.T., then it is a matter of scientific inquiry and Dawkins is right in saying no evidence for this special creature exists, like that proverbial flying teapot of his. Furthermore, even from a religious point of view as a symbol God ceases to be God when it is a made a matter of scientific discovery. It brings the transcendent to nature, as an object within nature, separate from all other individuals, like a dog or a cat except with wings and seven eyes. But that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Which is an extremely common interpretation for this word.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, that certainly is a cynical revision of history. I don't think that holds up however to scrutiny.

Tell that to Giordano Bruno.

Which makes it an external object. Science only examines "things". It only examines objects, things it can see or measure in some way.

Your choice of terminology is strange. I don't want to get pulled into a semantic argument, but I'm not sure why referring to something as a "thing" when you use a noun to describe it already (e.g. "god") would create any sort of problem.

Science considers real effects and their sources. If God has real effects, he's within the
scope of science. If God doesn't have real effects, then what exactly are you referring to when you say "God"?

How can you see or measure something that is everything and no-thing at the same time?

We don't measure logical contradictions; we just note that they can't possibly exist and move on.

The only way to measure God, or the Absolute, or the Infinite, is to reduce it to something that is an object outside oneself one can examine.

No, it's not. When science makes an inference from some observable phenomenon, it doesn't assume that the observation is the be-all and end-all of the thing being observed.

When he broad-brushes strokes all of religion from his extremely narrow, extremely limited and sophomoric understanding of religion, yes he can and should be faulted.

Can you give an example? Maybe something he's said that you take objection to?

 

[fiat lux]

I chose Islam because it was more calming, the people treated me with respect and dignity regardless of my beliefs at the time, and because it involves meditation.

When you abandoned Christianity for Islam, true Christians may have been puzzled, but you would still have had their respect, but please don't expect likewise if you now decide to eschew Islam, particularly if you happen to be in say Riyadh, where after Friday prayers, outside the main mosque, as an apostate you would be separated from you head with the ceremonial sword without any dignity whatsoever.

 

[Koldo]

I accept that Buddhism explains the reason for 'suffering' (though not using this word) but fail to see an explanation of how our world/universe came to be - in the sense of detailed facts which can be universally accepted.

There are multiple religions. It is obvious there isn't an agreement on the answers provided by each and every religion. This, however, makes my statement no less true.

Genesis is metaphorical not an explanation, as is the remainder of the items you list, I think.

You claim it to be metaphorical. There are others who see it as literal and use it as the direct explanation as to how we came to exist.

 

[Koldo]

And what language does it use to speak of these origins of things? Scientific language? Is the intention of these stories that it uses as a vehicle to communicate truths (mythology), the same intention as the language of science? Aren't the stories about something other than trying to explain the actual mechanics, but rather to tell a truth about human experience using symbolic language, such as the Garden of Eden and the Fall of man? Do you honestly believe it was about a scientific inquiry on the parts of those authors and those cultures?

The answer is: We don't know.
We don't know to what extent the authors intended their texts to be understood as something literal.

Let us not confuse scriptures with religions themselves though. No matter what the authors intended, people have created religions with certain interpretations of these texts. And these interpretations include explanations about things that I have mentioned.

 

[fiat lux]

But back to Dawkins; 'It's difficult to remember the hosannas that greeted The God Delusion and the vote by Prospect's readers that named him as Britain's greatest public intellectual. Much of the atheist/humanist/secularist movement is now embarrassed by him, and repelled by the zeal of his cult of personality.

The Richard Dawkins website offers followers the chance to join the "Reason Circle", which like Dante's Hell is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise and the chance to meet "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science personalities". Obviously that's not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month or $5,000 a year - for the chance to attend an event where he will speak.

But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive "Darwin Circle" and then the "Evolution Circle", he attains the innermost circle where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with "Richard". He also gets a discount on a Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying "Religion- together we can find a cure".

The website also suggests that with donations of $500,000 you will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year; at this level you become a member of something called "The Magic of Reality Circle" (irony unintended!)

As Andrew Brown writing in The Spectator says, "At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here is a religion without the good bits".

 

[thau]

But back to Dawkins; 'It's difficult to remember the hosannas that greeted The God Delusion and the vote by Prospect's readers that named him as Britain's greatest public intellectual. Much of the atheist/humanist/secularist movement is now embarrassed by him, and repelled by the zeal of his cult of personality.

The Richard Dawkins website offers followers the chance to join the "Reason Circle", which like Dante's Hell is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise and the chance to meet "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science personalities". Obviously that's not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month or $5,000 a year - for the chance to attend an event where he will speak.

But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive "Darwin Circle" and then the "Evolution Circle", he attains the innermost circle where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with "Richard". He also gets a discount on a Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying "Religion- together we can find a cure".

The website also suggests that with donations of $500,000 you will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year; at this level you become a member of something called "The Magic of Reality Circle" (irony unintended!)

As Andrew Brown writing in The Spectator says, "At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here is a religion without the good bits".

No kidding?

Oh, well… let them all share in their fun and temporal blessings. It would be far worse for Christians to put on such a display or appeal.

Anyway, from where I stand, love of money is the least of his worries. (imo)

 

[LuisDantas]

That is certainly odd, but does not touch the merit of his actual writings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But back to Dawkins; 'It's difficult to remember the hosannas that greeted The God Delusion and the vote by Prospect's readers that named him as Britain's greatest public intellectual. Much of the atheist/humanist/secularist movement is now embarrassed by him, and repelled by the zeal of his cult of personality.

The Richard Dawkins website offers followers the chance to join the "Reason Circle", which like Dante's Hell is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise and the chance to meet "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science personalities". Obviously that's not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month or $5,000 a year - for the chance to attend an event where he will speak.

But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive "Darwin Circle" and then the "Evolution Circle", he attains the innermost circle where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with "Richard". He also gets a discount on a Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying "Religion- together we can find a cure".

The website also suggests that with donations of $500,000 you will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year; at this level you become a member of something called "The Magic of Reality Circle" (irony unintended!)

As Andrew Brown writing in The Spectator says, "At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here is a religion without the good bits".

So... you're upset that Richard Dawkins lends his name to a charity and uses his celebrity to raise money for it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The website also suggests that with donations of $500,000 you will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year; at this level you become a member of something called "The Magic of Reality Circle" (irony unintended!)

Sorry to go back to this, but I assumed (wrongly, apparently) that you actually checked this.

I can't find anything on the web site of the RDFRS US or the RDFRS UK that says anything like this. The US site has a few suggested donation amounts but nothing about the tiers you described. The UK site's "donate" button doesn't work at all.

So... can you provide a link for ANY of the things you claimed are on Richard Dawkins' web site?

 

[thau]

Sorry to go back to this, but I assumed (wrongly, apparently) that you actually checked this.

I can't find anything on the web site of the RDFRS US or the RDFRS UK that says anything like this. The US site has a few suggested donation amounts but nothing about the tiers you described. The UK site's "donate" button doesn't work at all.

So... can you provide a link for ANY of the things you claimed are on Richard Dawkins' web site?

I was curious, too.

I found this website which vetted out The Spectator's claim.

Not only religion, but atheism too can be used as a scam – Dawkins as an example | Religion, Culture, and Society

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was curious, too.

I found this website which vetted out The Spectator's claim.

Not only religion, but atheism too can be used as a scam – Dawkins as an example | Religion, Culture, and Society

When I follow the link in that article, I just see a bunch of T-shirts and books. Nothing about $500,000-a-year membership levels... or membership levels at all, actually.