Is it ok to mock beliefs?

[lunamoth]

Weeelll, yes and no.

Scripture is written in many places in parables, allegories and metaphors--all literary devices that have multiple interpretations.

Dawkins's RRally speech differs somewhat in that the language chosen is meant to convey his thinking clearly. It must be, or listeners are unlikely to grasp his meaning.

I suspect that the problem with opposing views of what Dawkins said and meant results more from the convictions and mindsets that people bring to an expression of opinion. Those who disagree are more likely, I think, to find what they already expect will be there...or to go along with what others who share their views tell them is there. Other possibilities, of course, including simply misunderstanding altogether.

But then, bringing a mindset inclined to agree with a speaker to his speech can be equally hazardous because a person who does so may assume and not listen as carefully as is necessary to be certain that bias isn't skewing one's understanding.

Dangers both ways...

Dawkins may have been aiming for clear communication here, but I think he missed the mark. Even people who agree with him on most or many things seem to have differing interpretations of his main point regarding the OP.

 

[lunamoth]

I agree with you about the context of scripture often being expanded. I think that it really has the ability to expand and that it is fine to do that, consciously -- not to use it against another person -- but as part of an expanded understanding. I do that myself in interpretting scripture -- because I figure that the only reason that I am referring to it in the first place is to widen my understanding of Love and Life, anyway. If it actually applies for me -- it is OK. I do not think that it is OK for me to widen the context in order to justify applying it to another person's life for my own purposes.

I am unwilling to read it (the Bible) with a literal interpretation. It seems unreasonable for me to do so for so many reasons. If I can't actually apply any of the information to my life -- I don't see any point in even referring to it.

So IMO, there is already much symbolic, metaphorical, allagorical and historical presentation of information that it is up to me to interpret and choose what and how to apply it or not. I think that it is wise to choose not to accept elements that are inconsistant with Love or an overall understanding of what is right action in life. Even if it is because we simply do not understand something -- even if there is real wisdom there -- I think it is not a good idea to just accept something across the board that does not assimilate well with our own understanding at the time.

Anytime in life, when we are viewing something -- we are already creating a context, at least as far as the perspective from which we are viewing it is concerned, anyway. Why not choose the largest (holistic) perspective of life that we can view from at the time? Why not a larger and larger, ever growing context of Love that includes more and more people and more and more aspects of life? If the universe is continually growing why would it be considered odd for our personal context of it (and all of life) to continually grow also?

Well said and I agree. :yes:

I also especially like the sentence I highlighted in blue, as that is the way I see things as well. But, of course, that is a perspective we choose to bring to scripture, and so colors all of our understanding of it. :rainbow1:

 

[HerDotness]

Dawkins may have been aiming for clear communication here, but I think he missed the mark.

How is what he said unclear?

Even people who agree with him on most or many things seem to have differing interpretations of his main point regarding the OP.

Hmmmm...haven't seen much at all of that here, an admittedly limited sampling. The people who agree with Dawkins here--and a few who said they don't--think he was saying that ridiculing beliefs can get attention and show up how ridiculous a person thinks those beliefs are which may lead those already having some doubts to examine what they believe and why more carefully.

Perhaps you can point out to me what other interpretations there are of his suggesting in the Reason Rally speech that he thinks "removing the kid gloves" so to speak is advisable on occasion and more frequently today than formerly. I don't think I see them, but I certainly have seen plenty of misinterpretations and misrepresentations of what he said.

 

[lunamoth]

Which hardly constitutes "repeatedly" as most people understand that word. Glad to see you qualify your earlier statement by what seems to be a much more fair assessment.



Oh, come now! As if Dawkins is at all responsible for erroneous or deliberate attribution of the quote to him rather than to this as yet unidentified New Scientist editor.



It's interesting only in that it's one person's or publication's disapproval of Dawkins and speculation about what Dawkins intends based upon that blog posting in 2009.

In that same posting the Guardian quotes, Dawkins concludes:


Source

Honestly, does this sound like a man who's made up his mind that mockery and ridicule are definitely the tactics to use and use often? And what evidence do we have that he's done more than he indicates he thinks effective enough, employ cutting wit such as Sam Harris did when he compared just knowing there must be a God to people who think Elvis is alive because they simply "feel that he must be"?

But Dot, from the way he phrased it, do you think he is inclined to "continue to go along with the appeasers and be all nice and cuddly,...?"

 

[lunamoth]

How is what he said unclear?



Hmmmm...haven't seen much at all of that here, an admittedly limited sampling. The people who agree with Dawkins here--and a few who said they don't--think he was saying that ridiculing beliefs can get attention and show up how ridiculous a person thinks those beliefs are which may lead those already having some doubts to examine what they believe and why more carefully.

Perhaps you can point out to me what other interpretations there are of his suggesting in the Reason Rally speech that he thinks "removing the kid gloves" so to speak is advisable on occasion and more frequently today than formerly. I don't think I see them, but I certainly have seen plenty of misinterpretations and misrepresentations of what he said.

Well, at the beginning of the thread 0.9 Penguin argued exhaustively that Dawkins was encouraging others to openly mock people who claim to be religious (specifically Catholics in the example) because they are essentially hypocrites if they say they are Catholic but then will not agree with certain doctrines, like transubstantiation.

I can't even recall which of the threads it was in, you said you thought it was really both, to mock the beliefs and mock the hypocrisy.

 

[HerDotness]

Well, at the beginning of the thread 0.9 Penguin argued exhaustively that Dawkin's was encouraging others to openly mock people who claim to be religious (specifically Catholics in the example) because they are essentially hypocrites if they say they are Catholic but then will not agree with certain doctrines, like transubstantiation.

I can't even recall which of the threads it was in, you said you thought it was really both, to mock the beliefs and mock the hypocrisy.

Yes, I agree that both are legitimate interpretations of what Dawkins meant. I thought perhaps you were referring to there being more interpretations of what he said than those.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Road Warrior]

Which hardly constitutes "repeatedly" as most people understand that word.

This is how I use the word: Repeatedly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

How do "most people understand that word"?

BTW, because I don't list each and every time Dawkins has used the phrase, are you saying he didn't say it? You know, like "If a trees falls in a forest and no one is there to here it, does it make a sound?"

Honestly, does this sound like a man who's made up his mind that mockery and ridicule are definitely the tactics to use and use often?

Yes, it does. As the linked article alludes, Dawkins is capable of being more persuasive, but he chooses not to be. Why?

 

[HerDotness]

But Dot, from the way he phrased it, do you think he is inclined to "continue to go along with the appeasers and be all nice and cuddly,...?"

No, of course not, but that he's not doesn't necessarily mean he thinks that it's acceptable, as he's been maligned for so frequently here on RF, to lay into people and tear them to shreds. And I think it important to note that his tone in this posting was "Should we be more direct and barbed than we have been previously? I think that we may need to to get attention from those who might become receptive to what we atheists think about religion."

He said himself that he doesn't think "foul-mouthed rants" or shouting at people are worthy or useful tactics. [Edit to add: The people who are condemning him for the "Science is interesting...eff off!" quote seem to think this alone represents a foul-mouthed rant--one quote used rather jokingly. Is that fair or just? I don't see that it is.] But those are precisely what so many people here seem to think he is encouraging as well as using personal attacks and insults. People have actually said here, some repeatedly, that Dawkins is advocating calling believers stupid, worthless, and the like. Their justification for thinking so, I maintain, is that they primarily find his view of religious belief abhorrent. (Not by any means all of them, of course, but I've seen more that appeared to be reacting to what Dawkins believes rather than to what he has said about choosing tactics.)

 

[lunamoth]

No, of course not, but that he's not doesn't necessarily mean he thinks that it's acceptable, as he's been maligned for so frequently here on RF, to lay into people and tear them to shreds. And I think it important to note that his tone in this posting was "Should we be more direct and barbed than we have been previously? I think that we may need to to get attention from those who might become receptive to what we atheists think about religion."

He said himself that he doesn't think "foul-mouthed rants" or shouting at people are worthy or useful tactics. But those are precisely what so many people here seem to think he is encouraging as well as using personal attacks and insults. People have actually said here, some repeatedly, that Dawkins is advocating calling believers stupid, worthless, and the like. Their justification for thinking so, I maintain, is that they primarily find his view of religious belief abhorrent. (Not by any means all of them, of course, but I've seen more that appeared to be reacting to what Dawkins believes rather than to what he has said about choosing tactics.)

Don't you hate it when you type out a longish thoughtful reply and then some computer glitch or digit spasm causes you to lose the whole thing!?! Just happened to me. It was eloquent, trust me.

Anyway, the upshot, which I won't try to re-write (because I am clearly a much slower typist than most others here), is that I think the vast majority in this thread actually do agree with you, including myself, and that the point of the issue is not whether he called for mocking, but that mocking and ridicule encompass a wide range of possible actions in practice. Is it benign/abusive, effective/ineffective, ethical/unethical? It can be any of these things depending on the situation and what/how things are said.

 

[lunamoth]

No, of course not, but that he's not doesn't necessarily mean he thinks that it's acceptable, as he's been maligned for so frequently here on RF, to lay into people and tear them to shreds. And I think it important to note that his tone in this posting was "Should we be more direct and barbed than we have been previously? I think that we may need to to get attention from those who might become receptive to what we atheists think about religion."

He said himself that he doesn't think "foul-mouthed rants" or shouting at people are worthy or useful tactics. [Edit to add: The people who are condemning him for the "Science is interesting...eff off!" quote seem to think this alone represents a foul-mouthed rant--one quote used rather jokingly. Is that fair or just? I don't see that it is.] But those are precisely what so many people here seem to think he is encouraging as well as using personal attacks and insults. People have actually said here, some repeatedly, that Dawkins is advocating calling believers stupid, worthless, and the like. Their justification for thinking so, I maintain, is that they primarily find his view of religious belief abhorrent. (Not by any means all of them, of course, but I've seen more that appeared to be reacting to what Dawkins believes rather than to what he has said about choosing tactics.)

Dawkins has encouraged and promoted calling believers "Faith-heads," (which I personally find hilarious!). What do you think he means by that? Do you think it is meant to be a put-down?

 

[Father Heathen]

Is it ever ok to mock religious beliefs? Or even non-religious beliefs?

Are there some beliefs that are just completely off the table?

If there are some beliefs that are immune to mockery, which ones? Why? How to we distinguish between beliefs that are ripe for ridicule, and those that are immune?

No. Everything is fair game. Nothing is entitled to respect and reverence. Nothing is exempt from critique and scrutiny.

 

[HerDotness]

This is how I use the word: Repeatedly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

How do "most people understand that word"?

Like this--the synonyms from the definition you cite:
Synonyms: again and again, constantly, continually, frequently, hourly, much, oft, oftentimes (or ofttimes), over and over, often

"A few times," your own qualifier, hardly constitutes any of the above, wouldn't you agree?

BTW, because I don't list each and every time Dawkins has used the phrase, are you saying he didn't say it?

Of course not! Don't misrepresent what I said; I said no such thing. My point was that "a few times" does not constitute frequent use of the quotation, and your original statement was that he "loves to repeat" the quote.

Yes, it does. As the linked article alludes, Dawkins is capable of being more persuasive, but he chooses not to be. Why?

This reflects that you prefer to agree with their view, that's all. It doesn't necessarily mean that either The Guardian or you are correct in regarding him that way. "Capable of being more persuasive" in this context clearly means "shouldn't use approaches or tactics which I strongly disapprove of."

 

[HerDotness]

Dawkins has encouraged and promoted calling believers "Faith-heads," (which I personally find hilarious!). What do you think he means by that? Do you think it is meant to be a put-down?

Hmmmm...don't recall seeing or hearing him use the term, so I'd hesitate to express an opinion. I read FAR too much, so that I don't recall it means too many books, too many message boards, etc., that's for sure.

Do you have a link to where he's used the term?

 

[Road Warrior]

Like this--the synonyms from the definition you cite:
Synonyms: again and again, constantly, continually, frequently, hourly, much, oft, oftentimes (or ofttimes), over and over, often

"A few times," your own qualifier, hardly constitutes any of the above, wouldn't you agree?

I qualified it because I do not have proof of more than a "few times". Unlike you who seem to know exactly how many times Dawkins used the phrase. How many times was that, Dot?

This reflects that you prefer to agree with their view, that's all.

You know that cuts both ways, right?

 

[lunamoth]

Hmmmm...don't recall seeing or hearing him use the term, so I'd hesitate to express an opinion. I read FAR too much, so that I don't recall it means too many books, too many message boards, etc., that's for sure.

Do you have a link to where he's used the term?

He wrote about this in the Discussion Forum he hosted but took down a couple/few years ago. The forums are no longer active and he removed the archives, but let me see if I can find it anywhere else.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Dawkins has encouraged and promoted calling believers "Faith-heads," (which I personally find hilarious!). What do you think he means by that? Do you think it is meant to be a put-down?

I take it to be a light-hearted tongue-in-cheek jab to believers who do not critically explore their faith, and accept the faith for what it is.

On this forum, I realized I was a "crunchy" mom for how I raised my kids. Never once heard the term before, but then looked it up and realized how nutty I sound when I talk about baby-wearing, nursing on demand, cloth diapers, and why we never had jars of baby food in the house.

I get a kick out of it even though I'm the butt of the joke.

 

[HerDotness]

I qualified it because I do not have proof of more than a "few times". Unlike you who seem to know exactly how many times Dawkins used the phrase. How many times was that, Dot?

The honest perception which I trust you'll admit is that you don't know if Dawkins has indeed used the quote repeatedly. Neither do I, which is why I asked you to prove that your phrase "loves to repeat" the quote was true.

You used the phrase in that sense to signify disapproval of Dawkins--that much seems clear, so don't try to shift the onus to me. I wasn't the one who made a statement the truthfulness of which was challenged.

You know that cuts both ways, right?

See above where I freely admit that I don't know any better than you do how often Dawkins has used that quote.

And what difference does it make anyway, except for those who want to be oh-so-parentally judgmental? "Goodness me! How dare that man who's a scientist and professor use such shocking language."

Dawkins is hardly Howard Stern. In fact, Bill Maher uses foul language far more casually and often than I've heard it from Dawkins. Lay into Maher for a change, why don't you?

 

[HerDotness]

I take it to be a light-hearted tongue-in-cheek jab to believers who do not critically explore their faith, and accept the faith for what it is.

Maybe so. Akin to Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads. Might make sense.

 

[lunamoth]

I take it to be a light-hearted tongue-in-cheek jab to believers who do not critically explore their faith, and accept the faith for what it is.

On this forum, I realized I was a "crunchy" mom for how I raised my kids. Never once heard the term before, but then looked it up and realized how nutty I sound when I talk about baby-wearing, nursing on demand, cloth diapers, and why we never had jars of baby food in the house.

I get a kick out of it even though I'm the butt of the joke.

I think the same thing happened with Faithheads, actually. When Dawkins talked about it in his thread he was saying how it would be an effective 'meme,' but I think like other such labels it was quickly adopted by those it was aimed at because it was seen as so silly.

 

[HerDotness]

I think the same thing happened with Faithheads, actually. When Dawkins talked about it in his thread he was saying how it would be an effective 'meme,' but I think like other such labels it was quickly adopted by those it was aimed at because it was seen as so silly.

Whew! I sure hope it wasn't adopted by them because they love Limbaugh and consider themselves dittoheads, so "faith-head" is just another way to identify themselves.