Is it ok to mock beliefs?

[Road Warrior]

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 The forums are no longer active and he removed the archives, but let me see if I can find it anywhere else.

The term is used four times in "The God Delusion". This is from the Preface:

"If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down. What presumptuous optimism! Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature (whether by evolution or design)."

 

[lunamoth]

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 The forums are no longer active and he removed the archives, but let me see if I can find it anywhere else.

Here is a copy of one the pages from the defunct forum where Richard Dawkins discusses this. His post is quoted about 2/3 of the way down.

Dawkins Faith Head thread Page 3

 

[lunamoth]

The term is used four times in "The God Delusion". This is from the Preface:

Thank you!

I have The God Delusion on my Kindle but have not yet read it. Should have tried the search feature.

 

[Road Warrior]

This is from Richard Dawkins' website:

Faith-heads thrashed at Oxford Union - British Humanist Association - BHA - RichardDawkins.net
"Faith-heads thrashed at Oxford Union"

Regardless if the "Richard" who posted it is actually Dawkins or not, I'd presume all reasonable people would hold him responsible for the content on his website (especially material 18 months old) as they would material posted on GOP.com and Catholic.org

 

[YmirGF]

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

Sure, why not? Some beliefs practically beg to be mocked.

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

Not if you are sitting at my table. Gird thy loins!

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?

I think that is part of the problem, and it is a pretty big part, is that too many people take themselves and their conjectured beliefs about reality FAR TOO SERIOUSLY. It is because of this exaggerated sense of importance that they tend to have a hissy fit when someone lampoons their cherished, though silly, ideas.

I don't think causing distress and sadness to other people who arent doing any wrong is okay. If mocking one's belief is resulting in that then I wouldn't say it is okay.

My view is that perhaps people need to be shaken from their complacency from time to time. It does them good. I know when people question my beliefs and mock me, I LEARN from the experience. I don't freak out and get all defensive. Then again, most of my ideas are based on repeated, direct experience and plain old reality. Beyond this, I have a tremendous sense of humor and can make much more cutting jokes about myself than most would dare to. I recognize that most folks are not quite so well-adjusted and at ease in their flesh.

What would life be without those amusing little challenges to our established modes of thinking, eh?

 

[lunamoth]

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.

Do you think all people who identify as religious also are fans of Limbaugh?

 

[Road Warrior]

Do you think all people who identify as religious also are fans of Limbaugh?

In fairness to Dot, I think she is using Limbaugh as an example since I compared Dawkins' rhetorical rabble-rousing to Rush Limbaugh and others who love to toss "red meat" to their fans. Dawkins' comment about "Mock them" was clearly in the same vein as Limbaugh's hot air.

 

[HerDotness]

Hmmm...in The God Delusion, is it?

Drat! I knew I should have kept my copy instead of donating to my church library before we moved. Oh, well...probably does more good there, and I can always get it from the public library to re-read.

 

[HerDotness]

Do you think all people who identify as religious also are fans of Limbaugh?

Hardly. I know several thoughtful, well-educated Christians who think Limbaugh horrendous even though they're politically conservative.

Thinking that would be most unfair generalization.

 

[lunamoth]

Hardly. I know several thoughtful, well-educated Christians who think Limbaugh horrendous even though they're politically conservative.

Thinking that would be most unfair generalization.

I don't understand your comment, then. Can you clarify?

 

[HerDotness]

In fairness to Dot, I think she is using Limbaugh as an example since I compared Dawkins' rhetorical rabble-rousing to Rush Limbaugh and others who love to toss "red meat" to their fans. Dawkins' comment about "Mock them" was clearly in the same vein as Limbaugh's hot air.

Thanks, RW. Yes, I was.

Verging on it in the sense of using inflammatory language to make one's point although I don't think Dawkins as extreme or anywhere near as prone to use such rhetoric as Limbaugh by any means. Limbaugh openly insults people. I don't think Dawkins' "Mock them! Revile them!" means to insult people--although religious people may well think the fact that he hates religion insults them personally.

 

[HerDotness]

Do you think all people who identify as religious also are fans of Limbaugh?

Here's what you asked, which is why I said no, of course all people who identify as religious aren't Limbaugh fans. Thinking that all of them are would be an unfair generalization--that was my reference which wasn't quite clear, I see.

 

[lunamoth]

Here's what you asked, which is why I said no, of course all people who identify as religious aren't Limbaugh fans. Thinking that all of them are would be an unfair generalization--that was my reference which wasn't quite clear, I see.

This is your comment that I do not understand:

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.

I'm just trying to understand what you mean here.

Edit: For reference, it was From Post #161, in reply to my post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunamoth
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]

This is your comment that I do not understand:

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.

I'm just trying to understand what you mean here.

Oh, I see...looks like misunderstanding ran rampant there.

It was remarked that religious people adopted the term for themselves because it seemed so silly. I was suggesting that I sure hope they don't consider it as complimentary a term as being a dittohead is--dittohead agreeing with Limbaugh uncritically, of course, and faithhead being similarly unthinking.

Probably reflects my being a Dawkins-head, ya spose?

 

[lunamoth]

Thanks, RW. Yes, I was.

Verging on it in the sense of using inflammatory language to make one's point although I don't think Dawkins as extreme or anywhere near as prone to use such rhetoric as Limbaugh by any means. Limbaugh openly insults people. I don't think Dawkins' "Mock them! Revile them!" means to insult people--although religious people may well think the fact that he hates religion insults them personally.

Just noting that I saw this post and RW's, but I don't see how it is connected to your comment, except that Limbaugh is mentioned.

 

[HerDotness]

Just noting that I saw this post and RW's, but I don't see how it is connected to your comment, except that Limbaugh is mentioned.

Not sure what you're referring to as not seeming connected.

Edit to add: Oh, okay...you must be asking how my Limbaugh dittohead example relates to the comment about Limbaugh and Dawkins both using extreme rhetoric. It doesn't connect. I was making two separate references to Limbaugh.

 

[lunamoth]

Oh, I see...looks like misunderstanding ran rampant there.

It was remarked that religious people adopted the term for themselves because it seemed so silly. I was suggesting that I sure hope they don't consider it as complimentary a term as being a dittohead is--dittohead agreeing with Limbaugh uncritically, of course, and faithhead being similarly unthinking.

Probably reflects my being a Dawkins-head, ya spose?

Ok, thanks!

With respect to it being adopted by the religious, I've seen it used both as self-mocking by theists and as, not sure if there is a term for this, but as a reflection back at Dawkins. In the first sense it is as Mystic said, they realize the humor in it and use it jokingly about themselves, not seriously. In the second sense, they would refer to themselves as Faith-Heads when discussing Dawkin's view of them.

OK, back to the original question.

Do you think Faithheads is meant to belittle religious people?

 

[HerDotness]

Ok, thanks!

With respect to it being adopted by the religious, I've seen it used both as self-mocking by theists and as, not sure if there is a term for this, but as a reflection back at Dawkins. In the first sense it is as Mystic said, they realize the humor in it and use it jokingly about themselves, not seriously. In the second sense, they would refer to themselves as Faith-Heads when discussing Dawkin's view of them.

Yep, co-opting a term that's somewhat a pejorative and making it your own...perhaps humorously or maybe acknowledging that there's a bit of truth to the belief that religious people often don't look at their beliefs critically in the sense of examining them in detail. Also, might be as you seem to suggest, "Yeah, we're faithheads, cuz that Dawkins dude suggests that if you're religious, it must be because you don't think enough."

Do you think Faithheads is meant to belittle religious people?

Probably. Dawkins is hardly complimenting believers when he's said repeatedly that a person couldn't possibly believe that stuff if you thought about it much at all, it's all so preposterous.

His disdain for religion and religious people is evident. He and the other three Neo's talk in the Four Horsemen discussion about how respected Dr. Francis Collins is as a scientist, a respect that's well-deserved, and ponder how it can be that Collins, an obviously intelligent man, can live with such a disconnect between employing evolution in his work and professing that God created the universe in only six days on Sundays. That may be an example of their tendency to assume that religious people including Collins and his faith, Presbyterian, I think it is, take the Genesis creation account literally. I don't know if they know how literal Collins considers it.

Mind you, I don't feel completely sympathetic deep down with the "Religion is all organic mulch" stance of Dawkins and the other Neo's despite what I've said various places on RF, but I find myself leaning more toward that the more I look at and think about the basis for most religions. As the old saying goes, "Some of my best friends and several relatives are religious" and I was raised in a fervent Catholic family, so I still have mixed feelings about religious beliefs.

 

[lunamoth]

Yep, co-opting a term that's somewhat a pejorative and making it your own...perhaps humorously or maybe acknowledging that there's a bit of truth to the belief that religious people often don't look at their beliefs critically in the sense of examining them in detail. Also, might be as you seem to suggest, "Yeah, we're faithheads, cuz that Dawkins dude suggests that if you're religious, it must be because you don't think enough."



Probably. Dawkins is hardly complimenting believers when he's said repeatedly that a person couldn't possibly believe that stuff if you thought about it much at all, it's all so preposterous.

His disdain for religion and religious people is evident. He and the other three Neo's talk in the Four Horsemen discussion about how respected Dr. Francis Collins is as a scientist, a respect that's well-deserved, and ponder how it can be that Collins, an obviously intelligent man, can live with such a disconnect between employing evolution in his work and professing that God created the universe in only six days on Sundays. That may be an example of their tendency to assume that religious people including Collins and his faith, Presbyterian, I think it is, take the Genesis creation account literally. I don't know if they know how literal Collins considers it.

Mind you, I don't feel completely sympathetic deep down with the "Religion is all organic mulch" stance of Dawkins and the other Neo's despite what I've said various places on RF, but I find myself leaning more toward that the more I look at and think about the basis for most religions. As the old saying goes, "Some of my best friends and several relatives are religious" and I was raised in a fervent Catholic family, so I still have mixed feelings about religious beliefs.

Thank you again for the reply and clarifying your thoughts for me. And I am not all "anti-Dawkins" or however you might call it. His writing on evolution is helpful to many people, and I would like read his latest, The Greatest Show..., because it looks to be a brilliant summary of the current status of evolutionary science. I find that useful because I often need to point out creationist error regarding biology and evolution. I just usually don't get into those battles here as I find them to more often be the source of 'more heat than light.'

Cheers!

 

[Road Warrior]

Thanks, RW. Yes, I was.

Verging on it in the sense of using inflammatory language to make one's point although I don't think Dawkins as extreme or anywhere near as prone to use such rhetoric as Limbaugh by any means. Limbaugh openly insults people. I don't think Dawkins' "Mock them! Revile them!" means to insult people--although religious people may well think the fact that he hates religion insults them personally.

Sorry, Hottie Dottie, but I must disagree. IMO, Dawkins is using exactly the same tactics. I've pointed out numerous links why I believe this to be true, but if you disagree, then I think we should agree to disagree.

One thing is evident. You haven't provided one link or other evidence to back up your opinion. Why?