As you know, Abelard lived during the Age of the Troubadours -- which was also the Age of Courtly Love -- and he was the Abelard of 'Abelard and Heloise' fame. Coincidence that he developed the Moral Influence Theory?
I think not!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Richard Dawkins on Jesus Dying for Sins
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
As you know, Abelard lived during the Age of the Troubadours -- which was also the Age of Courtly Love -- and he was the Abelard of 'Abelard and Heloise' fame. Coincidence that he developed the Moral Influence Theory?
I think not!
You think religious groups and cults are the only ones who fleece people? I'm sure that atheists who do not answer to a higher power greater than themselves can fleece others without a single qualm of conscience.
If people are stupid enough to believe that the 11th Commandment is "thou shalt give an already wealthy church or TV evangelist money" then they perhaps need to read their Bible a little more carefully.
If the money is going into the pockets of the church or minister, instead of to the welfare of their members, there is something horribly wrong....
Which areas would that be? I don't know too many areas 'dominated by believers' in this world....but hey, I'm an Aussie so our predominant religion here is hedonism. We have more 'pretend Christians' and atheists than you can poke a stick at....and that is just the way they like it.
Religious holidays here are just an excuse for a booze up, too much food....and the day off. I cannot for the life of me think what 'critical thinking and basic science education' could possibly contribute to my 'daily life' more than the Bible already provides. I have no unanswered questions, and I don't have to invent baseless theories to fill the gaps in my actual knowledge.
Of course I can claim it....just as much as science claims that evolution ever took place on the scale that they imagine it must have to answer those questions for which they have no real concrete evidence.
Since you also said "he" I'm assuming that you thought I was male for some reason....its not the first time.
A quick search will usually reveal a person's gender....not that it matters, but I do think it does make a difference in how males correspond with other males. When they find that I am female, they usually take me less seriously.....can't have a peeing competition with a girl I suppose.
izzy88
Active Member
Please do not take anything Richard Dawkins says about religion or philosophy seriously - he has no idea what he's talking about, which makes his confidence so dangerous.
The Passion of Christ is deeply meaningful and symbolic in several ways. The most obvious should be that Jesus was God incarnate, meaning that God lowered himself infinitely to our level, became one of us in solidarity, and endured agonizing torture and death despite his absolute innocence, all so that we could have another chance to accept his gift of eternal life. It is an extremely powerful expression of his love for us, when properly understood. "Greater love hath no man than this, to lay down his life for his friend." He sacrificed himself for our benefit; I don't think you could have a more powerful expression of love than that.
Then there's all the Passover symbology, which is incredible in its own right, but requires some background understanding of Jewish history and culture.
But the bottom line is that of course God didn't need to do it that way - he chose to do it that way, for very good and beautiful reasons. God seems to love stories, and the story of the creator of the universe becoming human and enduring torture and death because he loves us so deeply is a pretty great story, wouldn't you say?
james bond
Well-Known Member
This statement from Dawkin's doesn't make any sense. If someone commits a crime, then they would have to pay their debt to society. One would have to repent their sin to God in order to receive forgiveness.
I think it goes to show that Dawkins remains a sinner. God had Moses write the Ten Commandments first for God's autobiography, the Bible.. To the non-believers, I think he wrote, "“You shall have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3 as the most important commandment. For the believers, it's "“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment." Matthew 22:36-38
exchemist
Veteran Member
The moral influence theory is described here: Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia . There are four or five theories of atonement in Christianity. Dawkins is representing things as if there were only one: the one it is easiest to object to, of course.
Dawkins annoys me because he seems either to know little about what he attacks, or, worse, knows more than he lets on but nevertheless takes refuge in facile caricatures for rhetorical purposes - which would be dishonest of him. I admit I don't know which it is, but I think it must be one or the other. He's made a deserved reputation as a biologist but seems to suffer from what is sometimes called "Nobel disease": the Nobel disease - The Skeptic's Dictionary (the term extends beyond actual prize winners.)
epronovost
Well-Known Member
You think religious groups and cults are the only ones who fleece people? I'm sure that atheists who do not answer to a higher power greater than themselves can fleece others without a single qualm of conscience.
If people are stupid enough to believe that the 11th Commandment is "thou shalt give an already wealthy church or TV evangelist money" then they perhaps need to read their Bible a little more carefully.
If the money is going into the pockets of the church or minister, instead of to the welfare of their members, there is something horribly wrong....
Of course anybody can fleece anybody and Dawkins has made more than just warn people about religious cults taking your money sometime as a matter of rule like it's the case for Mormons for example, giving bonk answers to important questions or poor, even dangerous advices about how to conduct one's life. Dawkins has also written and produced shows to warn about quackery in medecine for example.
Which areas would that be? I don't know too many areas 'dominated by believers' in this world....but hey, I'm an Aussie so our predominant religion here is hedonism. We have more 'pretend Christians' and atheists than you can poke a stick at....and that is just the way they like it.
The "Bible Belt" of the USA, Poland, Russia, pretty much the entire Middle East, many central and South American Countries to name but a few. Dawkins is an international celebrity read around the world. He's an household name. I personnaly don't live in a religious area either. Plus, keeping Proverbs 17:22 in mind, a bit of booze and fun feeds the soul.
You can't know what you don't know. Critical thinking could, for example, allow you to avoid looking like a complete idiot making 5 wrong "end time prophecies" and having to explain those failures away creating schism and conflict amongst your congregation. It would also allow you to take better decisions as a citizen (since you live in Australia, you do wield immense powers on how to shape society). It would allow you to better manage your finances; make better healthcare decisions. It can also help solve familly problems and reduce anxiety when faced with the subject of a fear or when faced with chaotic situation. Critical thinking is basically the swiss army knife of intellectual skills. It can be used everywhere and can synergise with all your other intellectual skills.
Thinking you know everything or "enough" is basically the most certain and efficient way to be a complete moron. I refer to you to Proberbs 1:7 and Proverbs 18:15 if you absolutely need some sort of push by your deity to crack open academical books and encylopedia and develop some critical thinking and acquire knowledge. Are you affraid your faith could be weakenned by critical thinking and knowledge? If so, there might be a problem with your faith for if a faith can be undermined by strict scrutiny, it's pretty much sign you fell for a charlatan and not the real deal.
Of course I can claim it....just as much as science claims that evolution ever took place on the scale that they imagine it must have to answer those questions for which they have no real concrete evidence.
Considering you self admited that you have very little interest for critical thinking skills and science education, in your interest of not looking like an idiot, you might want to refrain passing critiques on science. If you think Dawkins doesn't know enough about religion to criticise it and is a fool for doing so, you might want to listen to your own advice and keep your critique to area you understand yourself.
Last edited:
epronovost
Well-Known Member
My little sister has a piece of wisdom about such things (I'll try to quote it as exactly as my memory serves me): "It's very easy to die for someone all it takes is to rush foward and silence all of your instinct for a few minutes at most; it can be done without thinking, on impulse for nothing. It's just like killing another person; it can be done in flash of rage. Living for another person is what's hard because it's not one rush, it's a long walk. Almost everybody can sprint for a hundred meter, but it's a lot harder to make an Iron Man."
Last edited:
Pretty much this. I find him lacking nuance, but I know his arguments resonated with some Sri Lankan friends living in more traditional communities.
To me, his arguments are effective only against certain types of religion, but there are plenty of unsophisticated religious communities around where the immediacy and simplistic impact of an argument is more effective than nuanced and researched arguments with more depth.
Our closest neighbour...
He should have done that from the beginning, instead of first drowning almost everybody, just to see if that helps. For sure He looks confused, with His test and trial attempts...
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Good points! I quite agree with you. I think too that there are huge numbers of religious people worldwide who are no more nuanced nor sophisticated about their religions than is Dawkins.
Time and again, I hear folks complain that he lacks nuance, lacks understanding, lacks sophistication, etc. etc. etc. I totally agree with them.
But what is often not mentioned is that so do the vast majority of adherents in every religion on earth. That's not so much a criticism of those people as it is a recognition that most of us humans are 'average people'. You simply cannot expect most of us humans to be scholars and experts about something so vast and complex as a major religion. We have enough trouble most days just juggling the workload at our day jobs.
It's quite alright to point out that Dawkins is no scholar of Christianity or any other religion. Just don't do it in a way that implies he knows significantly less about Christianity than, say, the average Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, or Jehovah's Witness.
I have been on this Forum 16 years. I have seen tons of people come and go, but I have not even once seen the majority of the most active threads rise in sophistication and nuance above the level of a high school bull session about god, horniness, and pizza. How are you going to change that without either turning the Forum in an 'Experts Only' club, or changing human nature?
Think about that.
Yes, this question has been around for a long while.
Why would you make someone undergo an agonizing death when with one snap of those omnipotent fingers you could get a better result ─ better, because it would include everyone in the world, not just those who've heard of Jesus.
Related questions (just for a start) are ─
Why do you have to be believe in Jesus before your sins are forgiven? That makes it sound like blackmail ─ "Kiss my mule or ..."
What specifically did Jesus' death achieve? How exactly was the world different afterwards?
After Jesus, did God really send all of his Chosen People to hell for not being Christians? Or deny them postmortal advantages available to Christians?
What specifically did Jesus' death achieve? How exactly was the world different afterwards?
After Jesus, did God really send all of his Chosen People to hell for not being Christians? Or deny them postmortal advantages available to Christians?
I think that, in general, Dawkins's criticisms are aimed at typical mainstream beliefs of the Christian laity in the pews.
He gets labelled as "not deeply informed," but this is because he's responding to positions that aren't deeply informed, generally.
If you ask the average Christian why they're a Christian, odds are that they won't respond with the modal ontological argument. They'll probably respond with something very like the position that Dawkins was speaking to in the OP.
Dawkins's criticisms of Christianity are generally fair. It's just that Christianity, by and large, is much less sophisticated than the theologians and apologists wish it was. That's what creates the disconnect.
Except for your penultimate sentence, which I find ambiguous, you seem to be paraphrasing my post #31. Is that true?
Whatever the case, I pretty much agree with you.
I think it's your statement that doesn't make sense.
Punishing a completely innocent person doesn't relieve you of any of the punishment that you deserve.
"Your honour... yes, I killed that man. I'm guilty of murder. But since you kept another guy who didn't commit the crime in jail for 15 years before you caught me, in all fairness, you should knock 15 years off my sentence."
Substitutionary atonement is a ridiculous idea, IMO.
exchemist
Veteran Member
What I can't forgive him for is his use of false antithesis. Making fun of creationism is like shooting fish in a barrel for a biologist like him, but it does not amount to a serious critique of religion.
I hadn't read post 31 before, but now that I have... I'd say yes - it seems like we're expressing the same general idea.
Why wouldn't he go after creationism? Creationism is a widespread religious belief that he seems especially suited to engage with.
40% of Americans Believe in Creationism
Polling creationism and evolution around the world | National Center for Science Education
I would agree with you there. Dawkins seems at times quite willing to take cheap shots such as by creating false antitheses, etc.
It appalls me that such a man -- who is fully capable of explaining the ins and outs of evolutionary theory to a popular audience without losing much in the way of nuance or accuracy, should suddenly lower himself to the level of a right-wing talk show host when it comes to trying to cheat and manipulate people into believing what he wants them to believe through the use of false antitheses, mischaracterizations, one-sided pleading, and so forth.
I could excuse that as 'innocent mistakes' were it done by a village idiot such as myself, but Dawkins? It's not like his books on biology fail to provide sufficient evidence that he thinks way better than he pretends to think when writing about Christianity for a popular audience. I just hope I'm wrong about him. I hate it when good men pander.
And I say all that despite that, as a biologist, I respect and love him.
By the way, I love Sam Harris. I do not always agree with him, but he has never (unlike Dawkins) given me reason to doubt his intellectual integrity. His conclusions, (sometimes) yes -- but never his integrity.
evidently this is exactly what the essenes did.