Is Richard Dawkins A Bigot?

[Booko]

The justification is there to be found. Phenomena dubbed 'survival of the fittist' and 'natural selection' do abstractly propose and support the concept that we call "social Darwinism". Darwin did not intend to do so, and probably was not even aware that such prognostications could or would be made based on his observations, but they can, and they have been. Just as the ignorance and prejudice written into "sacred texts" likewise have such unintended (and sometimes intended) negative effects as they are passed down and interpreted through history by people who take them to be some sort of divine standard.

This seems to make quite a leap, PureX. You acknowledge that Darwin did not intend the negative ways in which his work might be used, but you cut no such slack for the writers of religious texts, and instead assume there is "ignorance and prejudice written" into them, which implies intent.

Perhaps I'm simply misreading you...could you clarify? Thanks.

 

[Booko]

All religions foster a "herd" mentality by the fact of their own definition. To be a Jew, or a Christian, or a Muslim, implies by definition that one adheres to a specific doctrine regarding the existence and nature of God, of mankind, and regarding the way a human being should live his life in response to this God. And many organized expressions of these religions will actually seek to protect and enforce these definitions by "excommunicating" or "shunning" or otherwise discouraging independent or alternate views.

That is not, however, the equivalent of a "herd mentality." Or, if it is, then science is equally guilty of having a "herd mentality." Just as you would be laughed out of the Patent Office for proposing your new, improved perpetual motion machine, religions may indeed "shun" you if they teach that and end to warfare is necessary, but you insist on public declarations that we should take over our neighbors with military force.

That isn't a "herd mentality" in either case. It may be merely good sense.

And one of the most common reasons given by religious practitioners for their choosing to participate in these groups is the unity of belief that they provide.

Either I misunderstand you, or that hasn't been my experience. I really have no guess which might be the case.

A lot of people become genuinely frightened and confused in environments where there are many possible viable views of God and of life and the meaning and purpose of our existence, and so they seek the comfort and sanctuary of an environment where such confusion is removed, and where one view of existence is presented as the absolute truth, which they can then use to dismiss all others (and to dismiss the fear and confusion they generate).

That's the opinion atheists often take, but whether it's actually been demonstrated to be true I don't really know. Has someone actually determined this to be true? Or is it more the consensus opinion of atheists?

Oh, and you will have to demonstrate how non-exclusive religions fit into this scenario above, as they are not interested in dismissing anyone else in the first place, so that can hardly be held up as an example for seeking some sort of psychological comfort to alleviate fear and confusion.

Not to mention, there are entire religions that do not believe they hold the absolute truth.

 

[Booko]

To present the negative, only, and to ignore the positive is not slander.

No, but it is very poor scholarship, as is the reverse.

Again, whatever objection I may have about Dawkins and his comments on religion come down to this: The man is obviously a top rate scholar, and knows better.

I haven't read enough of Dawkins on the subject of religion to come to any conclusion that he's a bigot. It's only been my observation over the years that he *appears* to have a big blind spot. But that hardly makes him unusual.

 

[Booko]

Religion is the single greatest obstacle to peace, and frankly I don't see how peace can be achieved at all while significant numbers of people embrace these opposing religious views. How can people be induced to fly in the face of their God?

If religion is the single greatest obstacle to peace, then you need to explain a couple of things to this dumb cluck:

1. How is it the Baha'is have been in Haifa for over a century, and we seem to get along well with everyone, and

2. How is it that the Baha'i Faith is the 2nd most widespread religion, right behind Christainity, with Islam running a distant 3rd. What this means is, Baha'is come from every culture imaginable, and yet, we still manage to get along with each other.

 

[lilithu]

If religion is the single greatest obstacle to peace, then you need to explain a couple of things to this dumb cluck:

1. How is it the Baha'is have been in Haifa for over a century, and we seem to get along well with everyone, and

2. How is it that the Baha'i Faith is the 2nd most widespread religion, right behind Christainity, with Islam running a distant 3rd. What this means is, Baha'is come from every culture imaginable, and yet, we still manage to get along with each other.

I would also point out MB, since you seem to want to say that the Dharmic faiths are tolerable and the Abrahamic faiths are especially bad, that while the Baha'i faith is open to the teachings of other traditions, it is without question Abrahamic.

 

[Booko]

To lunamoth:

But beyond that, how can religious people address these things? Can you ask the religious extremists to reconsider the very basis of their religion? Is the basis of their religion so very different from the basis of "mainstream" religion? Must they accept on faith that they are wrong and "mainstream" religionists are right?

I would suggest that religious extremists have been reconsidering the very basis of their religion for over a century now, which is precisely why there's such a noticable shift away from the idea that "everyone else is going to hell"

Nobody has to force anyone to do anything, and frankly it would be a disaster if anyone tried. People have been, and will continue to figure it out, one heart at a time.

 

[Booko]

I would also point out MB, since you seem to want to say that the Dharmic faiths are tolerable and the Abrahamic faiths are especially bad, that while the Baha'i faith is open to the teachings of other traditions, it is without question Abrahamic.

Thanks, Shaktinah. I was considering bringing up the point myself, but opted not to.

One of the reasons is that while we have very obvious roots in Abrahamic religions, it's not like we're disconnected from Dharmic faiths.

I would also point out that it seems to be in the nature of younger religions to be more tolerant. This was true of Christianity and Islam, certainly. To discuss this idea further would require a new thread, though.

To try and stay on topic, I'll just try and finish off with the thought that Dawkins' observations on religions are not without merit, but his view of religions appears to be somewhat myopic.

 

[kiwimac]

yes, he is. His assertion is that religious folk are ignorant or stupid. Try putting Jewish or Nordic before folk, see how it reads.

 

[kiwimac]

Oh and I have some horror stories about the Baha'is. Some of them are only tolerant on the surface.

 

[PureX]

This seems to make quite a leap, PureX. You acknowledge that Darwin did not intend the negative ways in which his work might be used, but you cut no such slack for the writers of religious texts, and instead assume there is "ignorance and prejudice written" into them, which implies intent.

Perhaps I'm simply misreading you...could you clarify? Thanks.

We are all ignorant and prejudiced. Darwin, however, was mostly presenting ideas based on observations, while ancient religionists were presenting ideas based as much on myth and superstition as on experience and observation. I don't think either is more or less given to error, but I do think the subjects they were illuminating afford very different degrees of opinionating.

 

[Scuba Pete]

then I can say, without qualification, Christianity is evi,l whatever my intent is.

Your bias against Christianity is painfully obvious. You and Dawkins are two peas in a pod. I am sure he hates me too.

 

[PureX]

That is not, however, the equivalent of a "herd mentality." Or, if it is, then science is equally guilty of having a "herd mentality."

Science is certainly guilty of it's herd mentality, too, but it's not "equally" guilty. At least the process of science is seeking a new way of understanding things, and at least the process of science seeks to overcome preconceived bias. This can not be said of the practice of religion, in most cases.

That's the opinion atheists often take, but whether it's actually been demonstrated to be true I don't really know. Has someone actually determined this to be true? Or is it more the consensus opinion of atheists?

I am not an atheist, and I have seen it for myself, many times. This particular web site tends to attract very open-minded people, and to discourage outspokenness among those who come here who are not equally open-minded. And in that way it's presenting an unrealistic view of religion. But if you visit a few of the other religious discussion sites available in the web, I assure you that you will very soon meet lots of folks who are not nearly so comfortable with such theological open-mindedness.

I'm not passing judgment on them. I'm merely pointing out that there are lots and lots of people participating in various religions that do so precisely because their religions offer them an environment of ideological certainty, in which they find great comfort. And who become genuinely confused and seriously frightened by the idea of there being other different, but equally viable ways of viewing and understanding the experience of God and existence.

Oh, and you will have to demonstrate how non-exclusive religions fit into this scenario above, ...

Being that I have not made such an accusation against ALL religions, I see no reason that I'd have to justify the statement relative to all religions. There are always anomalies, even among religions. And BaHai and UU would probably be among them. But even you will have to admit that BaHai and UU make up only a very, very, very tiny fraction of the world's religious adherents. While the more absolutist and exclusive religions like Islam and Christianity account for the huge majority of religious adherents.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Obviously, my statement was not applied to all religionists.

Apparently, only to "Abrahamic Religions".

Yet you chose to represent it so as to imply that it did. This is exactly what Dawkins is doing with religion in general, and why you are calling him a bigot. Don't you find this ironic?

No... bigotry is when you use a BROAD brush and color every one who is of a certain religion as being willfully ignorant. I have merely pointed out what I think of YOU and DAWKINS.

And I noticed that you also have not addressed Dawkin's charge that religions promote willful ignorance.

Why should I chase every contemptible and hateful statement that Dawkins has made? He has proven his bigotry over and over again. That IS the subject of this thread.

 

[PureX]

... whatever objection I may have about Dawkins and his comments on religion come down to this: The man is obviously a top rate scholar, and knows better.

Then why do you suppose he does it?

I haven't read enough of Dawkins on the subject of religion to come to any conclusion that he's a bigot. It's only been my observation over the years that he *appears* to have a big blind spot. But that hardly makes him unusual.

I'm wondering why it even matters if he's a bigot, or not, since his being a bigot has nothing to do with the validity or lack of validity of his observations on the dangers of religion in human societies. It appears to me that the whole "he's a bigot" charge is being used as a smoke screen to avoid looking at the validity of his observations on the negative aspects of religion.

 

[PureX]

...(religious) bigotry is when you use a BROAD brush and color every one who is of a certain religion as being willfully ignorant. I have merely pointed out what I think of YOU and DAWKINS.

Dawkins may have done so, but I have not. I will happily and readily affirm that not all those who follow religions are willfully ignorant, nor are all religions promoting willful ignorance.

Why should I chase every contemptible and hateful statement that Dawkins has made? He has proven his bigotry over and over again. That IS the subject of this thread.

You have seen and accused me of being a bigot, wrongly, and my statements are right here in front of you. So I have good reason to suspect that you may be seeing and accusing Dawkins of bigotry, unjustly, as well. Which is why I can't accept your charge against him without seeing the quotes to prove it.

But it's OK if you don't want to bother looking them up, as I'm not really all that concerned about whether Dawkins is a bigot or not. I'm more interested in his actual observations on the dangers of religions, and in the counter-charge of bigotry being used as an excuse for avoiding his original observations.

 

[Pah]

If qualifiers are not sufficient for you then I can say, without qualification, Christianity is evi,l whatever my intent is.

Truth qualifies and supports his statements. I would also say, the bigotry of the "blind eye", based on fear of criticism, is the biggest problem to resolving the observation. It becomes part of the problem. Flailing about with charges of bigotry against Christianity does not correct the problems with Christianity; it only becomes an equal part of the problem.

then I can say, without qualification, Christianity is evi,l whatever my intent is.

Your bias against Christianity is painfully obvious. You and Dawkins are two peas in a pod. I am sure he hates me too.

An adroit bit of cutting and pasting there.

You have yet again answered a post with character assignation. And yet again fail to see the thought behind my statement. As usual, none of my points are addressed.

You have me at a disadvantage, sir. You have continulaly called me a bigot and I am handicapped by my position to reply regarding your behavior. I do wish you would follow through on your promise to not respond to my posts. Your personal insults are annoying.

 

[Smoke]

He has proven his bigotry over and over again. That IS the subject of this thread.

It's the subject of this thread, and this thread has been so heated, precisely because it's not proven. A thread about whether Fred Phelps is a bigot wouldn't have generated so much heat or gone to over 200 posts.

 

[lilithu]

It's not so much that religious people can't think for themselves, it's that they don't want to bother. It's easier to just let someone else do the thinking for them. And certainly this is not true of all religions, or of all religious people. But there is a "herd" mentality among most religions, that the religions themselves tend to foster, and even enforce.

Honestly PureX, I used to think like you. I pretty much always believed in God (or at least didn't not believe) but was suspicious of anyone who belonged to an organized religion. Can't think, don't want to think, whichever. Heck, I was a biologist for several years. My position is not some knee-jerk irrational reaction against any criticism of religion. I understand where you're coming from.

When I got involved with UU, tentatively at first, I found that I could be part of an organized religion and still retain my own ability to think critically. At first I was worried that people who didn't know me would think that I was one of "them" - a church goer. At first I always felt compelled to say that I'm not one of "them" who can't think for themselves. Then at some point I realized that if people could make that mistake about me, just because I go to church, then I could be making the same mistake about others, just because they go to church, or synagogue, or mosque, or temple... At some point the distinction between "us" and "them" blurred for me.

I am still me. I haven't been brainwashed. I still know the potential pitfalls of religion. But I also know it's potential strengths. And I also see now the biases that I previously held against religon and religious people even tho I sincerely thought I was being objective. And that's what I've seen repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere on RF, people who are not part of organized religions making sweeping negative statements as if they were fact, and claiming that their assertions are obvious to anyone who isn't biased.

It's a logical tautology: Religion is bad because I think it's bad and I think I am objective. Therefore, the conclusion that religion is bad is an objective conclusion. And anyone who is not biased will agree with me because anyone who doesn't agree with me is by definition biased.

I've been on both sides. I see your biases and Dawkins' biases because they used to be my own. But of course we only see things in dichotomies, us versus them. And since I am arguing on behalf of religion, disagreeing with Dawkins, I must be only a "them" - a religionist who can't take the "obvious" and "objective" truth. How sad.

 

[Smoke]

If religion is the single greatest obstacle to peace, then you need to explain a couple of things to this dumb cluck:

1. How is it the Baha'is have been in Haifa for over a century, and we seem to get along well with everyone, and

2. How is it that the Baha'i Faith is the 2nd most widespread religion, right behind Christainity, with Islam running a distant 3rd. What this means is, Baha'is come from every culture imaginable, and yet, we still manage to get along with each other.

Well, Sharon, I don't object to all religions to the same extent; I actually have a fairly favorable opinion of some religions. I do have some serious reservations about the Bahá'í Faith, but still I often -- not always -- qualify my negative statements about the Abrahamic religions with some qualifier like "except for the Bahá'ís" or "with the possible exception of the Bahá'í Faith," and I really don't feel obligated to do that every single time. I think that for someone who isn't actually a proponent of the Bahá'í Faith, I've done as much as can be reasonably expected to exempt the Bahá'í's from my strongest criticisms. In this particular post I had specifically mentioned Christian, Muslim and Jewish extremism, and hadn't even hinted at any Bahá'í extremism, so I don't see how any facts, however favorable, about the Bahá'ís have anything to do with my point.

 

[Smoke]

But what if I were to take the attitude that atheism and everything it stands for is the cause of all moral decline in the world? If I want a moral world I'd reject out of hand everything that is linked to atheism, including science if I'm listening to Dawkins. And I'm making the same mistake Dawkins does by my prejudice.

I wonder if some people haven't been led a bit astray by the title of The Root of All Evil? Dawkins doesn't say that religion is the root of all evil, and points out that it's obvious no one thing is the root of all evil. By his account, the title of the show was selected by Channel 4 over his objections. (I don't remember what he wanted to call it, but I do remember it wasn't very catchy.) Dawkins says frankly that the title was stupid and offensive and that he didn't like it at all. He says the tv people insisted on the title because they wanted it to be offensive, so it would provoke more discussion and increase viewership.