Dawkins & Religion

[darkendless]

Sorry, but this is an illogical statement. It's not that Dawkins' criticism offends me. It's not that I don't "like" criticism and therefore I don't "like" Dawkins. It's not his criticism that's the issue - it's his obvious disdain for so much of what is dear to me and integral to my personal beliefs that's the issue.

Thats your issue not his. To be honest you're being unreasonable. No one gives a damn about what you hold dear to you. Just because you have beliefs will not make people respect them and in all fairness the only reason you're feelings get hurt is because people put their beliefs out there. I don't mean to sound rude i'm trying to tell it like it is.

If religion was personal none of this would happen. The problem with Dawkins giving offense is that people actually think their faith is important and sacred.

 

[Sunstone]

How come Dawkins gets to be the AntiChrist? It's not like he's the only one to arrive at those conclusions.

Everyone knows the AntiChrist comes last, at the end of the world.
Nice guys finish last.
Dawkins is a nice guy.
Hence, Dawkins is the AntiChrist.

 

[doppelganger]

Everyone knows the AntiChrist comes last, at the end of the world.
Nice guys finish last.
Dawkins is a nice guy.
Hence, Dawkins is the AntiChrist.

Impeccable . . .

QED, Phil . . . QED . . .

 

[sojourner]

"I doubt that religion can survive deep understanding. The shallows are its natural habitat."

"But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns."

thank you for proving my earlier point, Mr. Dawkins.

 

[sojourner]

"To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion."
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)


Now, in context:


To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to 'organized religion'. My first response is that I am not exactly friendly towards disorganized religion either. As a lover of truth, I am suspicious of strongly held beliefs that are unsupported by evidence: fairies, unicorns, werewolves, any of the infinite set of conceivable and unfalsifiable beliefs epitomized by Bertrand Russel's hypothetical china teapot orbiting the Sun. The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksa whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

A beautiful child close to me, six and the apple of her father's eye, believes that Thomas the Tank Engine really exists. She believes in Father Christmas, and when she grows up her ambition is to be a tooth fairy. She and her school friends believe the solemn word of respected adults that tooth fairies and Father Christmas really exist. This little girl is of an age to believe whatever you tell her. If you tell her about witches changing princes into frogs, she will believe you. If you tell her that bad children roast forever in hell, she will have nightmares. I have just discovered that without her father's consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?

Dawkins isn't a "lover of truth." He's a "lover of fact." Thanks for providing the context, because it clearly supports my previous argument that Dawkins would call Ansel Adams inept because he didn't use color. Dawkins has an agenda. To say: "powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves" has no bearing on why organized religion should be put down. The presidency is powerful. TV commercials are influential. The Red Cross is tax-exempt. The best schools pass on information to children too young to defend themselves.

Dawkins has an agenda, and it biases his "truth."

 

[sojourner]

Well there is nothing surprising or illogical about the position that religious beliefs are comparable to beliefs in werewolves, fairies and unicorns.

Not surprising, but it is illogical. Werewolves, fairies and unicorns do not help us to understand ourselves more deeply.

 

[sojourner]

Thats your issue not his. To be honest you're being unreasonable. No one gives a damn about what you hold dear to you. Just because you have beliefs will not make people respect them and in all fairness the only reason you're feelings get hurt is because people put their beliefs out there. I don't mean to sound rude i'm trying to tell it like it is.

If religion was personal none of this would happen. The problem with Dawkins giving offense is that people actually think their faith is important and sacred.

People should "give a damn about what [people] hold dear." It's called respect.
Yes, people do think that their faith is important and sacred, because it is important and sacred.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dawkins isn't a "lover of truth." He's a "lover of fact." Thanks for providing the context, because it clearly supports my previous argument that Dawkins would call Ansel Adams inept because he didn't use color. Dawkins has an agenda. To say: "powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves" has no bearing on why organized religion should be put down.

It does when religion has done nothing to warrant such a position in our society, and when we treat it as something that should not be critically considered. His opinion is not that religion should be "put down" for these reasons, but that religion should be under just as much scrutiny as anything else because it does influence people, and many people such as Dawkins and myself happen to think it's done nothing to warrant such influence or preferential treatment.

The presidency is powerful. TV commercials are influential. The Red Cross is tax-exempt. The best schools pass on information to children too young to defend themselves.

The presidency is elected by the people. TV commercials can be regulated. The Red Cross is a charity. Schools educate children with facts.

Religion possesses none of these traits, and yet enjoys all of the influence.

Dawkins has an agenda, and it biases his "truth."

And what is his agenda?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not surprising, but it is illogical. Werewolves, fairies and unicorns do not help us to understand ourselves more deeply.

That's a very narrow-minded view. I know people who believe in fairies and happen to think they are responsible for a great deal of our personal life experiences.

Even if that weren't the case, how does your argument render the comparison illogical? A belief in something ephemeral that provides some level of understanding (correct or not) about yourself, is no better than a belief in something that is just ephemeral.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

People should "give a damn about what [people] hold dear." It's called respect.
Yes, people do think that their faith is important and sacred, because it is important and sacred.

Important, maybe.

Sacred (in the sense that it should not be questioned), no.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, the OP gave several examples and was immediately told by Dawkins supporters that these were invalid examples because they were taken out of context - so I run the risk of being told the same.

Nevertheless, here are some examples of the type of comments I find sarcastic, condescending, and/or offensive:

"To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion."
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

Alright, good examples, and any one of them worthy of a thread's discussion. If you are concept with Dawkin's concept of memes, then you understand that it is neither contemptuous nor hostile to describe religion as mind viruses (although he is both contemptuous of and hostile to religion.) It is a powerful tool for understanding the relationship between ideas and people, whether the ideas are good or bad.

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
-- Richard Dawkins, quoted from Josh Gilder, a creationist, in his critical review, "PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science" (September, 2001)

I strongly agree, and have seen it demonstrated time and time again here at RF. ToE is scientifically established, period. It is in no more doubt than that the earth revolves around the sun, or that the earth is round. What would it take, today, to assert the earth is flat? You'd have to be ignorant, stupid or insane, no?

I believe that an orderly universe, one indifferent to human preoccupations, in which everything has an explanation even if we still have a long way to go before we find it, is a more beautiful, more wonderful place than a universe tricked out with capricious ad hoc magic.
-- Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (contributed by Ray Franz)

Again, I agree completely. How is this hostile? It's an aesthetic judgment. What he's trying to convey is that the universe that science studies is more interesting, weird, amazing and beautiful than that described in anyone's religious mythology.

On the one hand, miracle stories and the promise of life after death are used to impress simple people.
-- Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, "When Religion Steps on Science's Turf," Free Inquiry 18 no. 2 (1998): pp. 18-9,

So right.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence."

That's exactly what faith is. It's a license to disregard evidence and logic.

"But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns."

Exactly. If God does not exist, what the heck do theologists study?

This one's just weird:
"[Saddam Hussein’s] mind would have been a unique resource for historical, political and psychological research: a resource that is now forever unavailable to scholars... n a small way his execution represents a wanton and vandalistic destruction of important research data.”
--- Richard Dawkins , January 2007

NO it's not. If we want to learn how a dictator's mind works, we need to study dictators. Hard to do after they're dead. Same for Jeffrey Dahmer, for that matter.

Come on - if you can't see how those types of comments would offend people who take their religious beliefs seriously - you're in denial about the man's tactics, approach, and agenda.

The main premise of the new atheism is that religious beliefs should be subject to the same kind of rigorous criticism as any other belief, that faith is not a license not to question or deny. I agree with it.

 

[sojourner]

It does when religion has done nothing to warrant such a position in our society, and when we treat it as something that should not be critically considered. His opinion is not that religion should be "put down" for these reasons, but that religion should be under just as much scrutiny as anything else because it does influence people, and many people such as Dawkins and myself happen to think it's done nothing to warrant such influence or preferential treatment.

There's a wide gulf between criticism and bashing. Criticism acknowledges the veracity of the subject and seeks to define it more accurately. Bashing is simply bullying.

The presidency is elected by the people. TV commercials can be regulated. The Red Cross is a charity. Schools educate children with facts.

Religion possesses none of these traits, and yet enjoys all of the influence.

Yet, they blame him instead of themselves. They blame them -- then watch them. Churches are charitable. valid religion helps to deepen children's understanding.
People choose whether or not to associate with a religion. Valid religions don't sell stuff.

And what is his agenda?

to bash religion.

Criticism wouldn't present the argument as he did in the excerpt in question, for it seeks to put religion in a box that in which it clearly does not fit. It's a strawman.

 

[sojourner]

That's a very narrow-minded view. I know people who believe in fairies and happen to think they are responsible for a great deal of our personal life experiences.

Even if that weren't the case, how does your argument render the comparison illogical? A belief in something ephemeral that provides some level of understanding (correct or not) about yourself, is no better than a belief in something that is just ephemeral.

Of course it is, since God isn't ephemeral. Straw man. Again.

 

[sojourner]

Important, maybe.

Sacred (in the sense that it should not be questioned), no.

No one ever said it shouldn't be questioned.
Sacred doesn't mean "don't question." It means "separated out" -- as in, separated from the "usual."

 

[sojourner]

Alright, good examples, and any one of them worthy of a thread's discussion. If you are concept with Dawkin's concept of memes, then you understand that it is neither contemptuous nor hostile to describe religion as mind viruses (although he is both contemptuous of and hostile to religion.) It is a powerful tool for understanding the relationship between ideas and people, whether the ideas are good or bad.

I wouldn't attempt to trim my nails with a chain saw, even though it's a lot more powerful than nail clippers. The right tool for the right job.

Again, I agree completely. How is this hostile? It's an aesthetic judgment. What he's trying to convey is that the universe that science studies is more interesting, weird, amazing and beautiful than that described in anyone's religious mythology.

It's another straw man. Most religion is a far cry from "ad hoc," as well as magic. It might be more constructive if he were to say, "I believe that scientific knowledge is better than spiritual understanding."

So right.

Wrong. We don't use those things to "impress" anyone.

That's exactly what faith is. It's a license to disregard evidence and logic.

That's not what faith is. Faith may work in other ways than with empirical evidence. It may espouse things we don't yet understand. but it does not give us license to disregard those things on the whole.

Exactly. If God does not exist, what the heck do theologists study?

Theology assumes God's existence. Your point is moot.

NO it's not. If we want to learn how a dictator's mind works, we need to study dictators. Hard to do after they're dead. Same for Jeffrey Dahmer, for that matter.

Sometimes, eradicating evil is more important than studying it. It is weird.

The main premise of the new atheism is that religious beliefs should be subject to the same kind of rigorous criticism as any other belief, that faith is not a license not to question or deny. I agree with it.

But things need to be criticized for what they are -- not for what they are not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There's a wide gulf between criticism and bashing. Criticism acknowledges the veracity of the subject and seeks to define it more accurately. Bashing is simply bullying.

But where, exactly, does the line lie? When does Dawkins go from "criticism" to "bashing"? And how does one go about "bullying" something that is as powerful and influential as religion? Who, exactly, is being victimized?

From the books, articles and essays of Dawkins that I have read, I feel he has stated his case clearly - and it is quite compelling. He does not simply attack religion, he provides his reasons for his dislike of religion and provides logical arguments. That is not bashing - it's called having an opinion. Just because he presents his case so bluntly does not make it "bullying".

Yet, they blame him instead of themselves. They blame them -- then watch them. Churches are charitable.

But they are not, by definition, charitable institutions. And they certainly do not give the majority of the money they make (not only through donations, but through investments and commercialism) to good causes.

valid religion helps to deepen children's understanding.

You've used a selection of nebulous terms here. Define "valid", define "deepen", define "understanding".

I was entirely raised without religion. Would you say that has in any way hindered my ability to understand things?

People choose whether or not to associate with a religion. Valid religions don't sell stuff.

Again, you're asserting that there is such a thing as a "valid" religion, and, by extension "invalid religion".

to bash religion.

That's not an agenda, that's a method.

Criticism wouldn't present the argument as he did in the excerpt in question, for it seeks to put religion in a box that in which it clearly does not fit. It's a strawman.

In what way?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course it is, since God isn't ephemeral. Straw man. Again.

Except it isn't, since there is exactly zero evidence of the existence of a God. Just the same as the amount of evidence for the existence of fairies, werewolves and the Loch Ness monster.

So, again, if somebody believes in fairies and said belief adds to what they believe is their understanding of themselves, how is their belief in any way different to an average theists? What makes the comparison illogical?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No one ever said it shouldn't be questioned.
Sacred doesn't mean "don't question." It means "separated out" -- as in, separated from the "usual."

And why should it be separated? That implies it occupies a unique place, my question is why should it have that place and why does anybody strongly objecting to it having that place deserve ire?

 

[sojourner]

But where, exactly, does the line lie? When does Dawkins go from "criticism" to "bashing"? And how does one go about "bullying" something that is as powerful and influential as religion? Who, exactly, is being victimized?

From the books, articles and essays of Dawkins that I have read, I feel he has stated his case clearly - and it is quite compelling. He does not simply attack religion, he provides his reasons for his dislike of religion and provides logical arguments. That is not bashing - it's called having an opinion. Just because he presents his case so bluntly does not make it "bullying".

No,but making false claims about a subject and then holding the subject accountable to those false claims is bullying.

His reasons (as given above) are largely invalid. They're straw men.

But they are not, by definition, charitable institutions. And they certainly do not give the majority of the money they make (not only through donations, but through investments and commercialism) to good causes.

Of course they are. Charity is based in love, as the church is based in love (or should be. If Dawkins wants to present a valid case for self-serving churches, I'd be more than happy to hear it). Ministry to others is charity. By definition.

You've used a selection of nebulous terms here. Define "valid", define "deepen", define "understanding".

"valid" as in is altruistic, as opposed to something like a cult.
How is "deepen" vague?
How is "understanding" vague?

I was entirely raised without religion. Would you say that has in any way hindered my ability to understand things?

spiritually, yes. And that is the kind of understanding that we're talking about. Dawkins bashes it because he doesn't buy that there even is such a thing as spirituality.

That's not an agenda, that's a method.

No, I think he set out to bash religion, and substituting "fact" for "truth" is his method.

In what way?

Much of his argument is aimed at irresponsible religion that has ulterior motives. This kind of religion promotes unreasoned thinking and suppresses criticism. Then he lumps all religion into that mold, which clearly is the wrong thing to do.

 

[Random]

Dicky D has nothing worthwhile to contribute the argument about religion, really. He is a waste of time.

Any man who finds altruism a mystery that has to have a scientific explanation is a dick-head, and possibly a very dangerous evil for mankind.

All the weak are being weeded out now, and like Dicky D, even selecting themselves for the eternal burning, weeping and gnashing of teeth.