Dawkins & Religion

[sojourner]

That is YOUR failing.
If you are unable to see how werewolves, fairies, and unicorns help one understand themselves better it is merely because you have not been possessed by the right spirit.

I don't buy that silly argument from the fundies. Why would I buy it from a thinnking man who's using it as a trap? C'mon, Mest -- Surely you can think of something better than that!

 

[McBell]

I don't buy that silly argument from the fundies. Why would I buy it from a thinnking man who's using it as a trap? C'mon, Mest -- Surely you can think of something better than that!

Trap?
I was merely being sarcastic.

But thanks for the vote of confidence!!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

See the above quotes. almost all of them are based on misleading assumptions -- at least for mainstream Xy. It is bullying when one makes repeated accusations that are designed to undermine something -- especially if the accusations are false or misleading.

I have yet to see anything either misleading or false about any of the quotes that have been attributed to him in this thread. Could you care to simply quote them with emphasis?

Charity is derived from the word charis, which is translated as "love." It has everything to do with love.

Now you're just arguing semantics. There is a difference between the modern, legally-defined term of "charity" as in "charitable institution" and the ancient usage of the word. As an institution, the church is not a charity.

Hmmm. Churches work solely based upon donations, for no profit. They work toward the giving of time, treasure and talent to the less fortunate.

Wrong, the church is also funded by the assets of commissioners, reserve funds, and hiring out churches for various occasions such as weddings - not donations. And yes, the churches DO turn in profit. Religious ceremonies aren't free. And "the giving of time" is a nonsense argument. You could argue that anybody is a charity if they "give time" to anything. Heck, me talking to you on this message board is me "giving my time" to educate you on my opinion. Does that mean I'm being charitable?

Well, I'd argue that that's not ministry. It's yelling an opinion at best, and pandering at worst.

So, it's exactly the same, then?

cults are not altruistic. They engage in theft, brainwashing, kidnapping, and are usually centered around one individual, who claims to be the most recent incarnation of Christ. Mainstream religion does none of that. Their motives are self-serving to the extent that any charity is self-serving.

I would argue that mainstream religions do partake in brainwashing and are usually centered around an individual. They work for profit, to propagate their message and spread their agenda - therefore they are not altruistic, and are self-serving. Maybe not a cult in every sense, but the line to me seems very blurred.

This has very little to do with knowledge. It has to do with experience and how that experience informs the meaning of our existence in relationship with the universe.

So, it's just incoherent nonsensical rambling?

Of ourselves in relationship to the Divine.

Which can be demonstrated how?

Has nothing to do with belief, but with perception. The reason he doesn't buy into it is because he doesn't see it.

Or because it's not there.

You can't even understand the nature of the Church. How can you hope to understand spirituality when you've never been exposed to it?

I have been. I went to a series of Catholic schools and taught by a wide variety of priests, surrounded by theists. I already "understand" spirituality enough to know that, to me, it doesn't exist and that people who say it does are just partaking in wishful thinking at best, or delusion at worst.

Once again you make the profoundly arrogant assumption that I do not understand something or have not been exposed to it just because I am an atheist, and that this somehow negates my opinion of it.

It doesn't fit his mold for what expresses truth. So he bashes it, because he doesn't understand it.

Again, another arrogant assumption. Having read his books, I can say he understands it very well. He just doesn't agree with it. And, frankly, your attitude more-or-less sums up one of the main reasons he doesn't.

I understand that his definition of what is rational and logical is very narrow. In fact, he's partially right, because spirituality extends beyond reason and embraces mystery.

In other words, it defies rationality and embraces unproven, mythical claims without any basis in reality. How can you not see that that is not a good thing?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't need to do that. God is not based in my demonstration.

Then what is God based on, and on what factual basis (is any) can you make any claims about God whatsoever?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To reduce God to human terms in order to identify God is to make God less than God. Definition engages knowledge. We're not looking for knowledge, and if we are, then we don't "get it" (case in point: Mr. Dawkins).

It's not a cop-out any more than not being able to demonstrate that something is beautiful is a cop-out.

Yes, it is a cop-out. It's a means by which theists avoid answering the requirement for evidence. We're not asking you to "reduce God to human terms" (although millions of people already do that by believing that God took the physical form of Jesus less than two-thousand years ago), we're asking you to provide evidence of God. Evidence can take many forms, the only requirement being that it is objectively verifiable.

Let me make this simple: I am an atheist, so to me any of your claims about "God" are meaningless - unless you can present evidence of said God. Telling me what God is like, what basis God works on or how God functions is no different to telling me how Frankenstein conducted his experiments or how Superman can breathe in space. Before I can take your claims seriously to any degree, you must first demonstrate that your subject is based on facts.

You claimed that I and Dawkins do not understand religion, yet it is clearly you who does not understand atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I haven't encountered a religion yet that wasn't selling something.

 

[Kathryn]

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 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?

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.

So right.

That's exactly what faith is. It's a license to disregard evidence and logic.
Exactly. If God does not exist, what the heck do theologists study?

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.



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.

This thread is not about the VALIDITY of Dawkins' statements. This thread is about his "style" - his modus operandum so to speak - and whether or not he's intentionally offensive and sarcastic, from what I can gather from the OP.

Of course you agree with his atheistic POV and think he's clever - you're an atheist and you don't at all mind ridiculing religious beliefs. I would expect you to feel exactly as you do about Dawkins.

But back to the tone and delivery of his opinions. You took each statement one by one and basically excused the sarcasm because you agree with his statements.

That's about like someone saying, "My co worker is smart, and she's got a lot of energy - but damn, she's a ******." When you say, "Oh come on - I think she's pretty smart and a real asset to the team - give me some examples of why you think she's a *****," the other person gives you example after example. And after each one you say something like, "Oh - well, she was RIGHT about it - you'll just have to excuse her delivery, she was on the rag that day." Or "Well, you know, she has a point, and she just feels so strongly about it that she doesn't feel the need to be respectful to those who disagree with her." Or "I agree with her sentiment - and if you'll look past her calling you simple minded, ridiculous, and delusional, I'm sure you'll be able to agree with her too!"

Richard Dawkins may be right as rain - though personally I doubt it. And the thing is, he'll certainly never win me as a convert, because he's simply such a ****** when it comes to his delivery.

I don't demand pandering, or special rights, and I certainly don't want to force my beliefs down someone else's throat. I don't demand gentle treatment and I'm not easily offended. But disdain directed at me is a turn off every time.

I believe most people feel the same way.

What if I said, "Now, Auto, you misguided and closed minded fairy tale believer who believes that lesbians can live happily ever after - I believe that lesbians are simple minded people. I admit - I'm hostile toward lesbians. Someone would have to be an all out simpleton to be a lesbian. And while we're on the topic, I've written a great book that I want you to read. And - if you don't read it, and my other 11 books as well, then you have no right to criticize my writings or my stance. Even though I've clearly expressed my disdain for your beliefs, your opinion that I'm hostile and arrogant has absolutely NO VALIDITY UNTIL YOU READ MY BOOKS."

Come on. You would form a pretty definitive - and probably accurate - opinion of me quickly - like within two minutes tops.

 

[Kathryn]

People, people, don't get sidetracked into the topic of whether or not atheists or theists "have it right." The OP is not about the validity of either viewpoint - it's about Richard Dawkins' delivery of his viewpoints and opinions.

I could go up to a person and tell them, "Hey, you're fat. Not only can I see it for myself, I've done the research to back up that claim. If you can't see that you're fat, you've got a problem. In fact, you're delusional. And aren't I clever to point that out! I think I'll go get some glamour shots done and put up a website just to showcase myself and how clever I am. I may even write some books about my research on obesity and, err, well FAT people like YOU! I'll go on talk radio and tell the world how fat you and all your cousins are! We'll all have a jolly time being clever and intellectually discussing you and your family in quite ridiculing terms - because fat people like you deserve it. It doesn't matter that I've hurt you, and it doesn't matter that I have no respect for you. What matters most is that I make a lot of money off this and that people think I'm all that and a bag of chips. Who could begrudge me - I'm telling the truth and I've got the research to back me!"

Maybe the person is fat - maybe they're not. It doesn't matter - the approach sucks and is counter productive.

 

[painted wolf]

I haven't encountered a religion yet that wasn't selling something.

Depends on what you consider 'selling'... but I can think of a few that don't sell themselves and are very offended by any association with the idea.

Anyway, to the OP.
I think Dawkins makes some good points... but he also makes some bone-headed generalizations and caricatures.
Like anyone, not everything he says is solid gold.... sometimes it's a stink-bomb. This is why you don't idolize people.

wa:do

 

[Peacewise]

re ..The last line of the Dawkins youtube posted up. post #32 this thread

After discussing religion, he primes the audience with the Sept 11 reference and how Sept 11 changed him and reveals that change as ...
"Lets all stop being so damned respectful."

What Dawkins seems to fail to understand is that Sept 11 occurred because people ARE already being disrespectful, and Dawkins wants ALL people to be this. The sept 11 attackers claimed that their violence was in response to america's disrespect, disrespect breed disrespect or violence breeds violence - and Dawkins puts out the call...

"Lets all stop being so damned respectful."

He is very smart and utterly stupid.

I do so get a bit of a kick out of the 'damned respectful', in context of religion, there is nothing damned about respect, indeed disrespect is damned, so I appreciate the irony of his statement.

 

[darkendless]

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.

Once again respect is earned not gained. People comming to my house trying to convert me is a clear lack of resppect for my religion, at yet once a week people come round.

Faith is only as important as you make it. The more important you make it the more you set yourself up to be knocked down. Simple.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

People, people, don't get sidetracked into the topic of whether or not atheists or theists "have it right." The OP is not about the validity of either viewpoint - it's about Richard Dawkins' delivery of his viewpoints and opinions.

I could go up to a person and tell them, "Hey, you're fat. Not only can I see it for myself, I've done the research to back up that claim. If you can't see that you're fat, you've got a problem. In fact, you're delusional. And aren't I clever to point that out! I think I'll go get some glamour shots done and put up a website just to showcase myself and how clever I am. I may even write some books about my research on obesity and, err, well FAT people like YOU! I'll go on talk radio and tell the world how fat you and all your cousins are! We'll all have a jolly time being clever and intellectually discussing you and your family in quite ridiculing terms - because fat people like you deserve it. It doesn't matter that I've hurt you, and it doesn't matter that I have no respect for you. What matters most is that I make a lot of money off this and that people think I'm all that and a bag of chips. Who could begrudge me - I'm telling the truth and I've got the research to back me!"

Maybe the person is fat - maybe they're not. It doesn't matter - the approach sucks and is counter productive.

Good thing Richard Dawkins doesn't do that, then.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

re ..The last line of the Dawkins youtube posted up. post #32 this thread

After discussing religion, he primes the audience with the Sept 11 reference and how Sept 11 changed him and reveals that change as ...
"Lets all stop being so damned respectful."

What Dawkins seems to fail to understand is that Sept 11 occurred because people ARE already being disrespectful, and Dawkins wants ALL people to be this. The sept 11 attackers claimed that their violence was in response to america's disrespect, disrespect breed disrespect or violence breeds violence - and Dawkins puts out the call...

"Lets all stop being so damned respectful."

He is very smart and utterly stupid.

I do so get a bit of a kick out of the 'damned respectful', in context of religion, there is nothing damned about respect, indeed disrespect is damned, so I appreciate the irony of his statement.

And, as always, all Dawkins' critics can do is take one line out of context and completely miss his point.

 

[McBell]

re ..The last line of the Dawkins youtube posted up. post #32 this thread

After discussing religion, he primes the audience with the Sept 11 reference and how Sept 11 changed him and reveals that change as ...
"Lets all stop being so damned respectful."

What Dawkins seems to fail to understand is that Sept 11 occurred because people ARE already being disrespectful, and Dawkins wants ALL people to be this. The sept 11 attackers claimed that their violence was in response to america's disrespect, disrespect breed disrespect or violence breeds violence - and Dawkins puts out the call...

"Lets all stop being so damned respectful."

He is very smart and utterly stupid.

I do so get a bit of a kick out of the 'damned respectful', in context of religion, there is nothing damned about respect, indeed disrespect is damned, so I appreciate the irony of his statement.

Wow.
talk about twisting things around to fit your own agenda.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To reduce God to human terms in order to identify God is to make God less than God. Definition engages knowledge. We're not looking for knowledge, and if we are, then we don't "get it" (case in point: Mr. Dawkins).

It's not a cop-out any more than not being able to demonstrate that something is beautiful is a cop-out.

But you're talking about a subjective aesthetic judgement. If I find something ugly, I can be entirely correct even if you find the same thing beautiful. If I conclude that God exists, would this be entirely correct even if you conclude the opposite?

This thread is not about the VALIDITY of Dawkins' statements. This thread is about his "style" - his modus operandum so to speak - and whether or not he's intentionally offensive and sarcastic, from what I can gather from the OP.

Of course you agree with his atheistic POV and think he's clever - you're an atheist and you don't at all mind ridiculing religious beliefs. I would expect you to feel exactly as you do about Dawkins.

But back to the tone and delivery of his opinions. You took each statement one by one and basically excused the sarcasm because you agree with his statements.

Okay... so you don't have a problem with his underlying message, just the tone and manner in which he delivers it. Could you describe to us how he could deliver his message in a way that you wouldn't find offensive?

Depends on what you consider 'selling'... but I can think of a few that don't sell themselves and are very offended by any association with the idea.

I'm talking about a religion putting out a thing of purported value like salvation, enlightenment, etc., and then positioning itself as the way to acheive or acquire this thing.

Anyway, to the OP.
I think Dawkins makes some good points... but he also makes some bone-headed generalizations and caricatures.
Like anyone, not everything he says is solid gold.... sometimes it's a stink-bomb. This is why you don't idolize people.

I don't think his understanding of every religion necessarily has much in the way of nuance, but since one of his main arguments is that nuanced understanding isn't necessary to reject religion, I'm not sure how far this gets us without first addressing the argument directly.

re ..The last line of the Dawkins youtube posted up. post #32 this thread

After discussing religion, he primes the audience with the Sept 11 reference and how Sept 11 changed him and reveals that change as ...
"Lets all stop being so damned respectful."

What Dawkins seems to fail to understand is that Sept 11 occurred because people ARE already being disrespectful, and Dawkins wants ALL people to be this. The sept 11 attackers claimed that their violence was in response to america's disrespect, disrespect breed disrespect or violence breeds violence - and Dawkins puts out the call...

"Lets all stop being so damned respectful."

He is very smart and utterly stupid.

I do so get a bit of a kick out of the 'damned respectful', in context of religion, there is nothing damned about respect, indeed disrespect is damned, so I appreciate the irony of his statement.

Yes... America deserved to be attacked because it failed to respect the religious beliefs of violent maniacs... just like a woman deserves to be attacked when she wears an outfit that a rapist finds too attractive.

We need not - and IMO should not - accommodate dangerously unreasonable views.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm talking about a religion putting out a thing of purported value like salvation, enlightenment, etc., and then positioning itself as the way to acheive or acquire this thing.

What about religions that position themselves as one of many ways to acquire "the thing"? Not all religions are exclusive.

I don't think his understanding of every religion necessarily has much in the way of nuance, but since one of his main arguments is that nuanced understanding isn't necessary to reject religion, I'm not sure how far this gets us without first addressing the argument directly.

When your argument is essentially "religion is dumb and dangerous" I thin there is a little more room for nuance. Again, I think he makes some very valid points on religious power structure and so on... but I think his leap to condemn all faithful as uncritical is IMHO flawed.

But I admit bias in this as I am one of the faithful.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about religions that position themselves as one of many ways to acquire "the thing"? Not all religions are exclusive.

Like how McDonald's positions itself as one of many ways to acquire a hamburger? You can still be selling something even if you don't claim exclusivity.

When your argument is essentially "religion is dumb and dangerous" I thin there is a little more room for nuance. Again, I think he makes some very valid points on religious power structure and so on... but I think his leap to condemn all faithful as uncritical is IMHO flawed.

But I admit bias in this as I am one of the faithful.

wa:do

Heh... I'd say that your assessment of Dawkins' argument has a little room for nuance itself.

I don't think that he makes the argument that all religion is dumb and dangerous. Here are his main arguments as I see them:

- religion generally lacks evidentiary support.
- religion and religious belief generally benefit from a special status in society that they don't warrant on their merits.
- religion generally (though not universally) has associated with itself a disturbing degree of harm. Some religions/religious beliefs (including mainstream ones) are associated with "dumb and dangerous" effects to a significant degree.

 

[painted wolf]

Like how McDonald's positions itself as one of many ways to acquire a hamburger? You can still be selling something even if you don't claim exclusivity.

No, more like how you can cook a hamburger at home, from the cow you raised yourself. The nice thing about a lot of native faiths is that they don't really care to convert anyone or engage in any power struggles. No tithes, no muss, no fuss... nothing to sell because they simply don't see the world or spirituality as something that can be sold or quantified.

Heh... I'd say that your assessment of Dawkins' argument has a little room for nuance itself.

Glad you caught that.

I don't think that he makes the argument that all religion is dumb and dangerous.

Just all of the ones he knows about.

Here are his main arguments as I see them:

- religion generally lacks evidentiary support.

I agree... it's hard/impossible to quantify personal experience.

- religion and religious belief generally benefit from a special status in society that they don't warrant on their merits.

Again I agree.

- religion generally (though not universally) has associated with itself a disturbing degree of harm. Some religions/religious beliefs (including mainstream ones) are associated with "dumb and dangerous" effects to a significant degree.

Again, on the surface I agree... however I feel he extrapolates to include those religions (and denomination within the harmful ones) that do no do harm... for various reasons such as not "doing enough" to stop the "dumb and dangerous" and as such becoming "dumb and dangerous" by proxy.
And thus he advocates for the total end of all religions... after all we all premise ourselves on something that can not be put under a microscope. Which is, in his broader argument, dangerous to society.

Again, just my take on his over arching argument.

wa:do

 

[Peacewise]

And, as always, all Dawkins' critics can do is take one line out of context and completely miss his point.

Wow.
talk about twisting things around to fit your own agenda.

As usual the claim of "agenda" or "out of context" is applied to anyone who sees a contrary view to the poor old humble atheist or their spokespeople.

I kept Dawkins IN context, he makes the context of the quote about the debate of religion and purposely associates that debate with his change after 911 and states "Lets all stop being so damned respectful."

Damn right I have an agenda, it's a call for respectful debate.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

This thread is not about the VALIDITY of Dawkins' statements. This thread is about his "style" - his modus operandum so to speak - and whether or not he's intentionally offensive and sarcastic, from what I can gather from the OP.

You see ... this is most probably where we most disagree.
You can always argue about style and you always will find one that like it or dislikes it and thinks that it is appropriate or not.

But you can't argue about truth and validity at a certain point.

That YOU dislike Dawkins "style" was far more predictable than the fact that you think a positive atheist reaction to his style would be. Just look at me

But actually that is not at all important and frankly i think that you yourself would not meet the criteria you seem to set for people like Dawkins.
Not only is your "style" towards nontheists (including Dawkins) not so overwhelmingly better than what you criticize about him, i actually would doubt that you held your ground when you were confronted with believers in witchcraft and fairytales.

We only need to see your last post where you give an example of a man telling another guy that he is fat and so on while at the same time you use a nice word for the rear end of the human body for Dawkins yourself.

And again ... there is not even sarcasm in saying that belief for example in angels is comparable to belief in fairies. Rationally it is on the same level.

I believe most people feel the same way.

Most christians in the usa certainly do.

What if I said, "Now, Auto, you misguided and closed minded fairy tale believer who believes that lesbians can live happily ever after - I believe that lesbians are simple minded people. I admit - I'm hostile toward lesbians. Someone would have to be an all out simpleton to be a lesbian. And while we're on the topic, I've written a great book that I want you to read. And - if you don't read it, and my other 11 books as well, then you have no right to criticize my writings or my stance. Even though I've clearly expressed my disdain for your beliefs, your opinion that I'm hostile and arrogant has absolutely NO VALIDITY UNTIL YOU READ MY BOOKS."

I dont remember him saying an equivalent.
You might point me to it.

BTW: Would you reply to my last post please?