Dawkins!

[Autodidact]

Alright then, Dawkins' arguments about religion and God. Here's one in his own words via Wiki:

Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

Again, I think it's a good argument, and one worth making. You?

 

[Autodidact]

Storm: Have you read any of Dawkins' books on the subject of religion?

 

[Storm]

Does Dawkins raise this argument? In which book?

Well, you raised it when I invited people to relay his better theological arguments, so I presumed it was one of his.

I'll make you a deal, Autodidact: I'll read The God Delusion and discuss it with you if you'll read Why Religion Matters by Huston Smith.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, you raised it when I invited people to relay his better theological arguments, so I presumed it was one of his.

No, that was my argument.

I'll make you a deal, Autodidact: I'll read The God Delusion and discuss it with you if you'll read Why Religion Matters by Huston Smith.

Well, I'm not writing posts accusing Huston Smith of making bad arguments, as you are doing re: Dawkins. Are you saying that you don't actually know what his arguments are, good or bad, but jumped to the conclusion that they're bad without actually reading them? btw, he's a pretty good writer, and his non-science books are relatively concise. Who is Huston Smith, what is his book about, and why would I want to read it?

 

[Storm]

Alright then, Dawkins' arguments about religion and God. Here's one in his own words via Wiki:

Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

Again, I think it's a good argument, and one worth making. You?

I think it's as biased, unproductive, and unfair as the arguments that Stalin and Mao highlight the dangers of atheism. Every worldview has its skeletons in the closet.

"Let's stop being so damned respectful!" Best way in the world to ensure that the people you're talking to stop listening.

 

[Storm]

No, that was my argument.

My mistake.

Well, I'm not writing posts accusing Huston Smith of making bad arguments, as you are doing re: Dawkins. Are you saying that you don't actually know what his arguments are, good or bad, but jumped to the conclusion that they're bad without actually reading them?

I tried to read The God Delusion, and gave up in disgust. I've freely admitted several times on this thread that I'm only glancingly familiar with his theological arguments, which is why I invited people to present the better ones in the first place.

btw, he's a pretty good writer, and his non-science books are relatively concise. Who is Huston Smith, what is his book about, and why would I want to read it?

Huston Smith is my favorite theologian. Why Religion Matters was written in part to highlight the difference between science and scientism, and explain why we need to get over the latter. I'd say the main point of the book is that, in my own words, why religion and science need to stop peeing on each other's territory. It also touches on an idea I think would interest you, spiritual personality types.

 

[YmirGF]

"Let's stop being so damned respectful!" Best way in the world to ensure that the people you're talking to stop listening.

Storm, what Dawkins is saying is that perhaps we have been giving religions far more respect than they actually deserve. I believe he makes a solid point as to this day two somewhat taboo topics that people like to avoid discussing are religion and politics due to people's emotional attachment to these subjects that often defy sound reasoning.

Personally speaking, we don't give politician's much shrift anymore and it is puzzling that we still defer to so-called "religions authorities".

 

[Storm]

Storm, what Dawkins is saying is that perhaps we have been giving religions far more respect than they actually deserve. I believe he makes a solid point as to this day two somewhat taboo topics that people like to avoid discussing are religion and politics due to people's emotional attachment to these subjects that often defy sound reasoning.

Personally speaking, we don't give politician's much shrift anymore and it is puzzling that we still defer to so-called "religions authorities".

That much, I understand, but I disagree with the premise of his argument, which is that religion is "above criticism."

 

[DallasApple]

I dont feel so respected to be honest..Not on many occasions..

But anyway I want to read this book just to see what all the fuss is about..Its probably over my head but Im curious enough to give it a shot..

Love

Dallas

 

[Storm]

Also, I wanted to clarify something, Autodidact. I've never said that all of Dawkins' theological arguments are bad. If you took it that way it was miscommunication. What I HAVE said was that if he's produced a good one, I haven't hear it. Again, that was the reason for my invitation to his supporters to produce a good one.

Reposting:
I've never been impressed when he starts to talk God. The only good argument I've heard was his debunking of ID/ YEC, and that ain't hard.

Of course, I freely admit that I pay the man little attention. Perhaps you could relay one of his better arguments?

 

[sandandfoam]

I dont feel so respected to be honest..Not on many occasions..

But anyway I want to read this book just to see what all the fuss is about..Its probably over my head but Im curious enough to give it a shot..

Love

Dallas

I really struggled with the God Delusion, I didn't like his writing style at all. I'm sorry I didn't read one of his other books first because I hear they're much better.

 

[DallasApple]

I really struggled with the God Delusion, I didn't like his writing style at all. I'm sorry I didn't read one of his other books first because I hear they're much better.

Maybe I should read an older one first..Im just curious why all the fuss over this one.

Love

Dallas

 

[Autodidact]

Well, he's a much better writer than I, but if I were to venture so far as to try to summarize his arguments in my poor approximation, I think it's that various fields of science have explained/explain/will explain everything that we observe, so as the French scientist said to the King, "I have no need of that hypothesis." That is, God is superfluous as an explanation for anything from the quark all the way up to the universe. I think this is a response to the watchmaker type argument, which for my money is the only argument for God that carries any weight. And then there's the other response, which doesn't do that much for me, that you then need an explanation for God.

 

[sandandfoam]

Dawkins (p.157-8) summarizes the central argument of his book in 6 numbered points. I think this is a fair synopsis of his points.
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

3. The temptation to attribute to design is false because it raises the problem of who designed the designer.

4. Darwin illustrates that the appearance of design is an illusion.

5. Physics doesn't have a scientist who has done for physics what Darwin did for biology.

6. We shouldn't give up hope of something similar to Darwinism being produced by Physics.

 

[Autodidact]

Here's Dawkins in his own words:

the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared...Of course, this all presupposes that the God we are talking about is a personal intelligence such as Yahweh, Allah, Baal, Wotan, Zeus or Lord Krishna. If, by 'God', you mean love, nature, goodness, the universe, the laws of physics, the spirit of humanity, or Planck's constant, none of the above applies. An American student asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is ¬religion!' Well, if that's what you choose to mean by religion, fine, that makes me a religious man. But if your God is a being who designs universes, listens to prayers, forgives sins, wreaks miracles, reads your thoughts, cares about your welfare and raises you from the dead, you are unlikely to be satisfied.

 

[lilithu]

"Let's stop being so damned respectful!" Best way in the world to ensure that the people you're talking to stop listening.

Amen, sister! :yes:

And then we get criticized as intolerant, for being intolerant of intolerance. :areyoucra

 

[Autodidact]

I think that Dawkins is arguing:
(1) that religion receives undue respect, different and above that accorded to other ideas. I think this is true in some ways.
(2) Religion(s) in general should not be accorded this respect, because their ideas are not based on either evidence or reason. Of course, as an atheist, I strongly agree with that.

 

[Storm]

I think that Dawkins is arguing:
(1) that religion receives undue respect, different and above that accorded to other ideas. I think this is true in some ways.
(2) Religion(s) in general should not be accorded this respect, because their ideas are not based on either evidence or reason. Of course, as an atheist, I strongly agree with that.

Can you expand on 1? What are the "some ways?"

 

[Sunstone]

I think that Dawkins is arguing:
(1) that religion receives undue respect, different and above that accorded to other ideas. I think this is true in some ways.
(2) Religion(s) in general should not be accorded this respect, because their ideas are not based on either evidence or reason. Of course, as an atheist, I strongly agree with that.

I think Dawkins argues for both points -- along with some other points he argues for.

 

[Smoke]

"Let's stop being so damned respectful!" Best way in the world to ensure that the people you're talking to stop listening.

I agree with what Dawkins says about respect. He doesn't say, "Let's stop being respectful of one another." He doesn't say, "Let's stop being respectful of religious people." He does vehemently say, "Let's stop being so respectful of religion." "Let's stop being so respectful of revealed faith." "Let's stop being so respectful of dangerous ideas."

The idea that he says we shouldn't respect religious people is nonsense.

Watch his interview with the Bishop of Oxford, for instance:

Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (1/4)
Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (2/4)
Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (3/4)
Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford (4/4)
​

To say that Dawkins is saying we should be disrespectful of religious people is both unfair and untrue.

On the other hand, many of his critics seem to have taken the lesson to heart that we should be disrespectful of people, and whereas Dawkins is quite disrespectful of ideas, they hardly even touch on his ideas. Indeed, many of them have never bothered even to read his ideas. They attack not his ideas, but his perceived personality, his perceived "tone," his imagined "bigotry." Anybody who objects to these tactics is dismissed as a mere acolyte of Dawkins.

So how, in light of your statement above, can those detractors expect anyone to hear what they're saying? As far as that goes, do they even really have anything to say?

Over the last ten years or so, we've been treated to the spectacle of religious fundamentalists waxing indignant at the Harry Potter books and saying those books are demonic, calculated to lead children in to witchcraft, and so on. Very often, the critics of Harry Potter admitted that they had never actually read the books, and people would wonder, how can they be so vociferous in their condemnation of books they haven't even read?

If there were a rule on the forum that you couldn't discuss Dawkins unless you'd actually read his last three books, I wonder how much of this indignation there'd be. I suspect there'd be far, far less.

In my opinion, much of the anger and resentment people feel for Dawkins doesn't really have anything to do with him at all; they don't really even know who they're criticizing. It's the idea of a Dawkins that they hate.