Dawkins!

[gnomon]

What have I done?!:cover:

 

[lunamoth]

What have I done?!:cover:

You should have known better than to unleash the beast!

 

[lilithu]

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.

I honestly can't believe that you can make this post today when you were the great defender of religious liberty yesterday on the high school graduation thread.

The reason why Native Americans can use hallucinogenic drugs is the same reason why the kid had a right to not have to graduate in a church - the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

 

[Autodidact]

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!

But he did it without resorting to lying. Yeah, telling lies about people tends to **** them off. Do you like it when people tell lies about you? Do you consider that equally excellent? Familiar with The Golden Rule at all?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

True, he doesn't argue from authority, but from the strength of his facts and logic.

 

[Fluffy]

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 why has religion not been studied by the natural sciences? His credentials on memetics as a natural explanation of religion (amongst other things) surely gives him some authority.

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.

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

I regularly criticise practically every aspect of Dawkin's book but the most I have ever been accused of is being a theist. On the other hand, I cannot suggest that the man is not a bigot without him being my idol (see earlier in this thread). I think its a two way street and both sides are too transfixed on what is being done to them to notice that they are doing exactly the same back.

No matter what Dawkins intended, the effect he has had is to polarise atheism and theism and that cannot be a good thing.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Why not respond to his arguments, instead of attacking his tone or reputation?

 

[Smoke]

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.

I seriously doubt that it was all possible for him to present the idea that your religion is false and is bad for society in a way that you would have considered respectful.

 

[Autodidact]

But why has religion not been studied by the natural sciences? His credentials on memetics as a natural explanation of religion (amongst other things) surely gives him some authority.

I think Daniel Dennett would be your guy there.

 

[gnomon]

I don't know if I should bring this up but Richard Dawkins and Shmuley Boteach have a little row going over a comment Dawkins made about Boteach's style of debate. He commented that Boteach "screached like Hitler" when he became impassioned. Boteach took exception to that, obviously, and wrote a letter calling Dawkin's out. While crass, I will say in Dawkin's defense that Boteach himself has stooped to that argument of alluding to the Darwinists philosophy being akin to Hitler's. Of course, he was responding to an argument made by Hitchens.

And it goes on and on and on .......

Shmuley Boteach,
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: My Response to Richard Dawkins Comparing Me to Hitler - Living on The Huffington Post

Richard Dawkins,
Richard Dawkins: My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach - Living on The Huffington Post

Boteach response to Hitchens,
Evolution and the Bible by Shmuley Boteach--A rabbi's view of Darwin, Hitchens, God, atheism, Hitler, faith, religion -- Beliefnet.com

The requisite cat pictures,
Lolcats ‘n’ Funny Pictures of Cats - I Can Has Cheezburger?

Boris Karloff,

Here's me,
:canoe:

I miss Sagan.

 

[Smoke]

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

Wilson is an atheist; however he's made as much a career of criticizing what he calls "the new atheists" as they have of criticizing religion. Given his argument that they should stick to talking about science, his approach is more than a little disingenuous. He has, nevertheless, some interesting things to say.

 

[Fluffy]

Why not respond to his arguments, instead of attacking his tone or reputation?

Because his tone and reputation are relevant considerations for his arguments. He is talking about what is and is not acceptable when it comes to criticising religion and many of us find the way he has conducted himself, unacceptable. Therefore, it is important to establish why this is in order to rebut his arguments.

Besides, I don't think you are giving fair consideration to the human mind here. We cannot help but respond more negatively to those things which we find distasteful. We cannot analyse things rationally when they are not only probing at things we find precious but in a very rough way. Why have you ever raised your voice or shouted at anyone ever? Why did you ever do any irrational thing? Why didn't you completely disengage your emotions and treat each and every situation like a Vulcan?

If we want these arguments to be considered, they need to be stated so that they are non-offensive. Of course there is the very real worry that this cannot be done because criticising theism is inherently offensive. But the only way that can be challenged is to state them as non-offensively as possible so that the double standard, if it does exist, is revealed clearly.

I think Daniel Dennett would be your guy there.

Absolutely. Dennett is my idol, not Dawkins!

I seriously doubt that it was all possible for him to present the idea that your religion is false and is bad for society in a way that you would have considered respectful.

Is it possible to do so for atheism? Or will you get offended if I explain to you that atheism is false and bad for society? That is, after all, a very real possibility.

 

[Smoke]

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.

Even if he were a pastry chef, the tactics of his detractors would still be just as odious.

 

[Smoke]

I honestly can't believe that you can make this post today when you were the great defender of religious liberty yesterday on the high school graduation thread.

The reason why Native Americans can use hallucinogenic drugs is the same reason why the kid had a right to not have to graduate in a church - the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

I can't believe so completely missed my point when we just went through all that yesterday. I was, first of all, summarizing Dawkins' opinion. Second of all, my opinion (I don't know about Dawkins' opinion) is not that religious people shouldn't have access to drugs, but that everybody else should have the same rights even if they don't have a religious reason.

 

[lilithu]

But why has religion not been studied by the natural sciences? His credentials on memetics as a natural explanation of religion (amongst other things) surely gives him some authority.

He would have more authority in this area if his tone were more objective. This would be true for ANYONE; it's not just an "attack on Dawkins." Even when scientists are writing about something as "neutral" as ribosomal DNA, when you start calling those who disagree with you "delusional" you lose all credibility as an objective observer.

On the other hand, I cannot suggest that the man is not a bigot without him being my idol (see earlier in this thread).

That is unfortunate.

No matter what Dawkins intended, the effect he has had is to polarise atheism and theism and that cannot be a good thing.

That is my main complaint in a nutshell.

 

[Smoke]

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.

I have never known you to avoid the b-word for long when talking about Dawkins, or to fail to characterize anybody who disagrees with your mudslinging as an "adoring supporter" or something equally patronizing.

If your disagreement is with Dawkins is as rational as you say, how about presenting a rational argument about what he actually says for once?

 

[Fluffy]

I don't know if I should bring this up but Richard Dawkins and Shmuley Boteach have a little row going over a comment Dawkins made about Boteach's style of debate. He commented that Boteach "screached like Hitler" when he became impassioned. Boteach took exception to that, obviously, and wrote a letter calling Dawkin's out. While crass, I will say in Dawkin's defense that Boteach himself has stooped to that argument of alluding to the Darwinists philosophy being akin to Hitler's. Of course, he was responding to an argument made by Hitchens.

Boteach is offended by his speech style being compared to Hitler but sees nothing offensive in suggesting that atheism leads to genocide. Hmmmm.....

 

[Smoke]

Is it possible to do so for atheism? Or will you get offended if I explain to you that atheism is false and bad for society? That is, after all, a very real possibility.

Baby, I live in South Carolina, and somebody "explains" that to me at least three times a week. I can't afford to be offended by it.

 

[lilithu]

I can't believe so completely missed my point when we just went through all that yesterday. I was, first of all, summarizing Dawkins' opinion. Second of all, my opinion (I don't know about Dawkins' opinion) is not that religious people shouldn't have access to drugs, but that everybody else should have the same rights even if they don't have a religious reason.

Well gee, I thought your main point yesterday was that no one has the right to determine what is legitimately religious for anyone else. That a person's religious beliefs should never be compromised by what the rest of society may think. It is precisely THAT argument that gives certain Native Americans, not all, the right to use hallucinogenic drugs when other people can't.

 

[Smoke]

Well gee, I thought your main point yesterday was that no one has the right to determine what is legitimately religious for anyone else. That a person's religious beliefs should never be compromised by what the rest of society may think. It is precisely THAT argument that gives certain Native Americans, not all, the right to use hallucinogenic drugs when other people can't.

You still don't get it.

I say that people ought to have the right to observe their religious precepts as long as they don't violate the rights of others.

I say that all people ought to have the same rights regardless of their religious beliefs.

How you can imagine the two are contradictory is beyond me.