Dawkins!

[Storm]

You believe that it's delusional, but are too polite to say so?

Are there any circumstances where you would use the word?

In any attempt for civil, productive discussion, no. Why? As I've said countless times on this thread, it's counter-productive.

 

[Autodidact]

You're half confusing me. I would never say that I wouldn't lie, because that would be a ...
My slander is slander - sure I admit it, little green men, my tongue was in my cheek, much as I imagine his was.

You're claiming that when you said,

Why do you think Dawkins sees belief in little green men as being an acceptable inference and God as not?

It was tongue in cheek? You didn't mean to give anyone the impression that Dawkins actually believes in little green men?

And

I think there's something mildly amusing about an academic who believes in aliens considering others who believe in god(s) delusional.

Was that tongue in cheek too? Because it sounds like you're saying that Dawkins believes in aliens. Which would of course be an irresponsible lie, something that you would never do, right?

Unlike Dawkins, according to you, whom you also irresponsibly accuse of lying.

And people get upset because he thinks belief in God is delusional. At least he doesn't go around lying about other people.

 

[sandandfoam]

You're claiming that when you said, It was tongue in cheek? You didn't mean to give anyone the impression that Dawkins actually believes in little green men?

And Was that tongue in cheek too? Because it sounds like you're saying that Dawkins believes in aliens. Which would of course be an irresponsible lie, something that you would never do, right?

Unlike Dawkins, according to you, whom you also irresponsibly accuse of lying.

And people get upset because he thinks belief in God is delusional. At least he doesn't go around lying about other people.

Excellent, I've managed to do the same as him! I seem to have tickled the same nerve in an atheist as he hits in the theists!!
I must go to bed now, I enjoyed that.:angel2:
Night!Night!

 

[Smoke]

He is an intelligent man. He knew exactly how provocative he was being with that term and that is why he felt it necessary to explain it.

Of course he knew it would provocative, but any criticism of religion is provocative, and he knew that, too. One of the major points of the book is that religious ideas shouldn't be any more exempt from rational criticism than other ideas, but he knows very well that people think they should be. That's one of the things he's trying to change.

Any term he used to describe religion would have been considered offensive if it conveyed the idea of false beliefs held without evidence. I don't think the word "delusion" is really the problem; the problem is his unmitigated gall in criticizing religion.

 

[Apex]

I am having a really hard time seeing where religion is "above criticism" as the non-theists keep preaching. The majority of the people I have seen criticizing Dawkins for what he says do not have a problem with his criticizing of religion, but his being an *** while doing it. I welcome criticism of my religion, as long as it is honest and respectful and I hope others will expect me to return the same. If he had been honest and respectful with his criticism, I doubt there would be any where near the amount of people upset with him. But I see why he did not do that, its makes for a poor selling book.

I get the feeling that some of the people saying that they are trying to change "religion being above criticism" really just want hateful antagonism of religion to be publicly acceptable.

At the moment, [Dawkins] is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion.

Link

 

[Smoke]

At the moment, [Dawkins] is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion.

People who dislike Dawkins love to quote David Sloan Wilson as part of ad hominem argument against Dawkins' ideas. I wonder why they never seem interested in any of David Sloan Wilson's other ideas, especially his idea that religion is a product of cultural evolution.

I tend to agree with DSW more than Dawkins on that subject.

 

[lunamoth]

One of the major points of the book is that religious ideas shouldn't be any more exempt from rational criticism than other ideas, but he knows very well that people think they should be. That's one of the things he's trying to change.

What specifically does he want to talk about that he thinks is now exempt from rational criticism?

 

[logician]

Religion, particularly Xianity, in America, has been sacrosanct for so long, that any criticism of it raises outcries of religious bigotry, intolerance, heresy, you name it. I don't see theists decrying the 1000's of religious books that essentially say all atheists are immoral godlesss jerks going to a certain place of eternal suffering, yet they get all worked up about a book that does a critical analysis of religion, it's history and effects.

The hypocrisy runs deep.

 

[Smoke]

What specifically does he want to talk about that he thinks is now exempt from rational criticism?

Obviously, he doesn't think they're exempt from rational criticism, but he points out that many people do.

There are a lot of ways in which religions gets a free pass. One of the examples that Dawkins cites is the Supreme Court's ruling that Native American religious groups may not be prosecuted for using otherwise illegal hallucinogenic drugs as part of their religion, compared to the same court's ruling that people who use medical marijuana, even if it's legal in their state and used under a physician's advice, are subject to federal prosecution. "Imagine," he says, "members of an art appreciation society pleading in court that they 'believe' they need a hallucinogenic drug in order to enhance their understanding of Impressionist or Surrealist paintings."

He also cites the case of an Ohio boy who won in court the right to wear a t-shirt saying "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white." School officials had told him not wear it to school. What Darwin finds interesting is that the case wasn't pursued as a free speech case, because they would likely have lost on free speech grounds. They claimed freedom of religion, though, and won.

He asks, "What's so special about religion that we grant it such uniquely privileged respect?"

I think the point is not so much what may be discussed, but the notion that in any discussion, religion trumps reason.

 

[Apex]

People who dislike Dawkins love to quote David Sloan Wilson as part of ad hominem argument against Dawkins' ideas.

I quoted him to show that it is not just "delusional theists" who consider Dawkins to be abusing his position. The fact that his contemporaries feel such should be telling.

I wonder why they never seem interested in any of David Sloan Wilson's other ideas, especially his idea that religion is a product of cultural evolution.

What was the point in posting this besides an attempt to change the subject?

I tend to agree with DSW more than Dawkins on that subject.

I probably would as well.

 

[Smoke]

I quoted him to show that it is not just "delusional theists" who consider Dawkins to be abusing his position. The fact that his contemporaries feel such should be telling.

If David Sloan Wilson thinks Dawkins should restrict his public remarks to the areas of his academic expertise, DSW should probably do the same. He doesn't, though. In any case, DSW's personal criticisms of Dawkins have nothing to do with the validity of Dawkins' arguments.

What was the point in posting this besides an attempt to change the subject?

I'm not trying to change the subject; I'm not finished with Darwin's Cathedral yet, and I won't be ready to discuss until I am. I'm just, as usual, complaining that people are more interested in attacking scientists on a personal level, or quoting them when they attack somebody on a personal level, than in discussing their ideas.

 

[Apex]

If David Sloan Wilson thinks Dawkins should restrict his public remarks to the areas of his academic expertise, DSW should probably do the same. He doesn't, though. In any case, DSW's personal criticisms of Dawkins have nothing to do with the validity of Dawkins' arguments.

And again, it is not necisarraly the validity of Dawkins arguments, but his being an *** in presenting them. If he had been/would be respectful about it, I would have no problem with him and would not mind if he criticized religion to his heart's content.

 

[logician]

And again, it is not necisarraly the validity of Dawkins arguments, but his being an *** in presenting them. If he had been/would be respectful about it, I would have no problem with him and would not mind if he criticized religion to his heart's content.

This seems to be more of a visceral reponse from "offended" theists than actual fact, where is he such an *ss about presenting his views? YOur beef again is that Dawkins does not coddle belief in belief, which I don't either.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Is Wilson an atheist? If not, what is his affiliation?

 

[Sententia]

Religion, particularly Xianity, in America, has been sacrosanct for so long, that any criticism of it raises outcries of religious bigotry, intolerance, heresy, you name it. I don't see theists decrying the 1000's of religious books that essentially say all atheists are immoral godlesss jerks going to a certain place of eternal suffering, yet they get all worked up about a book that does a critical analysis of religion, it's history and effects.

The hypocrisy runs deep.

Ya know they used to kill or imprison us... now some just dislike or hate us. SOME. Sheesh.

Interesting though... The mormons had a presidential candidate and their are more atheists in the country then mormons... Atheists are not organized nor do they believe in organizing and meeting for the sake of a belief system. However... if some enterprising agent starts a very basic... we dont believe god site with nothing more to it... links to charitable links, atheist forums... (Security... you have to click a button that says by clicking this button I solemly affirm that there is no evidence for a god nor do I acknowledge one. hehe) Some news... A place to send donations for political reasons etc etc... I think a lot could get done.

Wow... I am easily distracted... yeah so ... it was worse like when you said god damn it and they grabbed some tongs and removed your tongue... Its not like that anymore. You can blaspheme! (Not in mass... and a few other states...) But mostly anywhere. lol.

 

[fantome profane]

What Darwin finds interesting is ...

I don’t remember Darwin speaking about this case, what year did this occur?

:sorry1: Sorry, I just had to.

 

[lilithu]

I'm just, as usual, complaining that people are more interested in attacking scientists on a personal level, or quoting them when they attack somebody on a personal level, than in discussing their ideas.

The fact that Dawkins is a scientist does not give him any more authority with regards to religion than a bus driver or a pastry chef.

 

[fantome profane]

The fact that Dawkins is a scientist does not give him any more authority with regards to religion than a bus driver or a pastry chef.

But no less.

 

[lilithu]

That is exactly what he wants you to say because then you look like the stupid, overreacting theist he has built you up to be. However, it does make him intellectually dishonest. I think it would serve theists well to avoid doing what Dawkins wants and become outraged at his terminology. It would be better if they saw beyond the smokescreen and called him out on the real game that he is playing.

It doesn't matter. Anytime a theist is critical of Dawkins, even if we judiciously avoid the b-word, we get accused of being emotional and overreacting, etc. Basically, if you don't agree with Dawkins then you're irrational. :sarcastic

Note: lest anyone be confused, the above is not a criticism of Dawkins. It's a criticism of his adoring supporters.

 

[lunamoth]

Obviously, he doesn't think they're exempt from rational criticism, but he points out that many people do.

Which people think that religious topics are exempt from rational criticism? I see things like the examples you give discussed all the time.

There are a lot of ways in which religions gets a free pass. One of the examples that Dawkins cites is the Supreme Court's ruling that Native American religious groups may not be prosecuted for using otherwise illegal hallucinogenic drugs as part of their religion, compared to the same court's ruling that people who use medical marijuana, even if it's legal in their state and used under a physician's advice, are subject to federal prosecution. "Imagine," he says, "members of an art appreciation society pleading in court that they 'believe' they need a hallucinogenic drug in order to enhance their understanding of Impressionist or Surrealist paintings."

I think there must have been a fair amount of discussion and deliberation about this topic before the SC made it's ruling. If religions got a free pass then there'd be no bringing it to court. If this ruling needs to be revisted, if it was not done properly or in accord with our laws, then what keeps anyone from challenging the decision? If the laws are unfair, what prevents anyone from campaigning to change the laws? I know that there is a lot of discussion about the medicinal uses of illegal drugs...so who's saying it's forbidden to talk about it?

He also cites the case of an Ohio boy who won in court the right to wear a t-shirt saying "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white." School officials had told him not wear it to school. What Darwin finds interesting is that the case wasn't pursued as a free speech case, because they would likely have lost on free speech grounds. They claimed freedom of religion, though, and won.

So, people have a right to be vile and bigoted. Frankly I think that one should be challenged, because I think a school has a need to protect all the people there from abuse and hateful environments. But, we all know that court rulings go against what (at least from our perspective) looks fair and just. OJ Simpson anyone?

He asks, "What's so special about religion that we grant it such uniquely privileged respect?"

Privileged compared to what?

I think the point is not so much what may be discussed, but the notion that in any discussion, religion trumps reason.

Really? Any discussion? That flies in the face of my personal experience in science (where I worked with many scientists who were religious), in religion (where many people are doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, engineers, etc., people who need to use reason in their careers) and in humanitarian work (where most discussion is about how to feed and heal people using the best agricultural, scientific and medical techniques available).