Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[Autodidact]

Sadly, Dawkin's statement, so characteristic of Autodidact, does not even rise to the level of sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity.

All opinions are welcome. I think Dawkins is right, you think it's wrong. But explain how it's bigoted?

 

[Willamena]

No, the subject of the sentence is "religion." Anyone who "listens" to religion is liable to learn that lesson. Bigotry is a statement that there is a group of people who are different and inferior in some way.

By this standard, religion is beyond criticism, because any negative statement about religion reflects negatively on religious people, and gets called bigotry. That is exactly what Dawkins argues--that religion is and should not be beyond criticism.

A group who "listens" and is "liable to learn" the "lesson" that they "do not understand the world" (according to someone else's limited view) is made to feel, what (remind me) --inferior or superior to the one who does "understand the world"?

I do agree, though, that if it was a statement about religion, and not "us", then religion would be beyond criticism. As it is, the ones who understand are the ones "beyond criticism".

 

[logician]

I think the context that Dawkins is using when he says "understand the world" is the natural progression of science. Many religions historically have actively or passivlely thwarted the progression of science, and do so to this day.

 

[Autodidact]

A group who "listens" and is "liable to learn" the "lesson" that they "do not understand the world" (according to someone else's limited view) is made to feel, what (remind me) --inferior or superior to the one who does "understand the world"?

I do agree, though, that if it was a statement about religion, and not "us", then religion would be beyond criticism. As it is, the ones who understand are the ones "beyond criticism".

It's a statement of what religion does to anyone; what religion teaches. Anyone is susceptible to it. He is suggesting that you would do better not to listen. He is not condemning you as a group for having a negative characteristic, such as stupidity or viciousness, but recommending a different course of action: not listening to this lesson. Yes, he is saying that listening to this lesson is not beneficial, but to call that bigoted is to stretch the word so far as to lose all meaning or possibility for debate, and to weaken the word itself.

This is my point to Pete. If you call arguing against a position bigotry, you have weakened your ability to name and combat actual bigotry, which looks like this:

The Jew is like a destroying virus that attacks our racial body to destroy our Aryan culture and purity of our race.
Dennis Hilligoss, Aryan Nations Oregon

or this:
“Jews do not act in the best interest of society. We need to systematically put in place some controls, call it discrimination if you will, to restore parity with other groups.”
Psychology Professor Kevin MacDonald

That's bigotry. Confusing that with criticism of religion as an idea just demeans the term.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

All opinions are welcome.

No - bigotry is never welcome.

I think Dawkins is right, you think it's wrong. But explain how it's bigoted?

Because it castigates/denigrates a group based on the perceived characteristics of a small subset of that group. Painting with such a broad brush is nothing but a smear.

 

[Autodidact]

No - bigotry is never welcome.

Because it castigates/denigrates a group based on the perceived characteristics of a small subset of that group. Painting with such a broad brush is nothing but a smear.

It's not even about a group. It's about a subject; religion.

 

[Autodidact]

No - bigotry is never welcome.

Neither is slander.

Because it castigates/denigrates a group based on the perceived characteristics of a small subset of that group. Painting with such a broad brush is nothing but a smear.[/quote]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's a statement of what religion does to anyone; what religion teaches.

All religion? Every religion? This is drivel ...

 

[Autodidact]

All religion? Every religion? This is drivel ...

Religion in general. In any case, you don't have to agree with it, the point is that it's not bigotry, it's just an opinion that you disagree with. Calling opinions you disagree with "bigotry" is a way of suppressing dissent.

 

[Willamena]

It's a statement of what religion does to anyone; what religion teaches. Anyone is susceptible to it. He is suggesting that you would do better not to listen. He is not condemning you as a group for having a negative characteristic, such as stupidity or viciousness, but recommending a different course of action: not listening to this lesson. Yes, he is saying that listening to this lesson is not beneficial, but to call that bigoted is to stretch the word so far as to lose all meaning or possibility for debate, and to weaken the word itself.

This is my point to Pete. If you call arguing against a position bigotry, you have weakened your ability to name and combat actual bigotry, which looks like this:

The Jew is like a destroying virus that attacks our racial body to destroy our Aryan culture and purity of our race.
Dennis Hilligoss, Aryan Nations Oregon

or this:
“Jews do not act in the best interest of society. We need to systematically put in place some controls, call it discrimination if you will, to restore parity with other groups.”
Psychology Professor Kevin MacDonald

That's bigotry. Confusing that with criticism of religion as an idea just demeans the term.

And yet, "religion" as I have come to know it in my last two years on this forum, encompasses philosophies that do accurately represent a good and useful understanding of the world. Granted, it's not used to explain the orbits of the planets, the temperature on the sun's surface, the causes of lightening or thunder, and the flow of electrical energy, but then that was never its intent nor function. It presents a picture of the individual's place in the world, replete with metaphoric imagery and mythic grandeur.

So "what religion does to people" in Dawkins' view, generalized as a statement about "religion" itself (as you insist it is), compares "those who understand" with a group ("us") who "learn" the "lesson" that it teaches (which one, I suspect I know) --how can that not be interpreted other than that there is a group of people with misunderstanding, or worse a lack of understanding, of whatever it is Dawkins' represents as the understanding of the world? Therein lies the bigotry, as I see it.

 

[Autodidact]

And yet, "religion" as I have come to know it in my last two years on this forum, encompasses philosophies that do accurately represent a good and useful understanding of the world. Granted, it's not used to explain the orbits of the planets, the temperature on the sun's surface, the causes of lightening or thunder, and the flow of electrical energy, but then that was never its intent nor function. It presents a picture of the individual's place in the world, replete with metaphoric imagery and mythic grandeur.

So "what religion does to people" in Dawkins' view, generalized as a statement about "religion" itself (as you insist it is), compares "those who understand" with a group ("us") who "learn" the "lesson" that it teaches (which one, I suspect I know) --how can that not be interpreted other than that there is a group of people with misunderstanding, or worse a lack of understanding, of whatever it is Dawkins' represents as the understanding of the world? Therein lies the bigotry, as I see it.

That analysis bars any criticism of religion. "Religion is wrong." "Are you saying that anyone who believes any religion is mistaken and therefore somehow inferior to non-religious people?"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That analysis bars any criticism of religion. "Religion is wrong."

No, it bars denigrating stereotypes.

 

[Autodidact]

No, it bars denigrating stereotypes.

I haven't seen any yet in this thread. How on earth can a statement about religion be a stereotype? Stereotypes are about groups of things. Plural. More than one. Say, for example, a group of people.

 

[Willamena]

I haven't seen any yet in this thread. How on earth can a statement about religion be a stereotype? Stereotypes are about groups of things. Plural. More than one. Say, for example, a group of people.

The stereotype is that people who believe in religion do not have a proper "understanding the world." They believe in a "God" that they talk to and that does things. They believe that supernatural beings exist in a "beyond." They believe that, armed with this inadequate understanding of the world, they do not have to learn or subscribe to "real" science.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”

That is the stereotype.

 

[Autodidact]

The stereotype is that people who believe in religion do not have a proper "understanding the world." They believe in a "God" that they talk to and that does things. They believe that supernatural beings exist in a "beyond." They believe that, armed with this inadequate understanding of the world, they do not have to learn or subscribe to "real" science.

Those may or may not be true statements, but they are not the statements that Dawkins made. He did not make any statements about religious people, but about what religion does to people. Sorry, that's just not a stereotype, bigotry, or anything but a statement of opinion about religion, and one with which I agree.

And let's face it, we've seen this in action here at RF. Not every religious adherent, but those who say that the Bible tells them what they need to know about ___________ (evolution, the age of the earth, gay people...) so they don't believe science on that subject. Their religion taught them that attitude. That doesn't mean that every religious person believes this, but that is what religion in general does.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”

That is the stereotype.[/quote]

 

[Willamena]

Those may or may not be true statements, but they are not the statements that Dawkins made. He did not make any statements about religious people, but about what religion does to people. Sorry, that's just not a stereotype, bigotry, or anything but a statement of opinion about religion, and one with which I agree.

They are not Dawkins' statements, indeed, but they represent the stereotype that his statement supports.

 

[Autodidact]

They are not Dawkins' statements, indeed, but they represent the stereotype that his statement supports.

A statement that "supports a stereotype" is bigoted? Hey, I have a big nose. Did I just make a bigoted, anti-semitic statment, since it supports the stereotype that Jews have big noses?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A statement that "supports a stereotype" is bigoted? Hey, I have a big nose. Did I just make a bigoted, anti-semitic statment, since it supports the stereotype that Jews have big noses?

Are you saying that all Jews are alike?

 

[Willamena]

A statement that "supports a stereotype" is bigoted? Hey, I have a big nose. Did I just make a bigoted, anti-semitic statment, since it supports the stereotype that Jews have big noses?

If you and your kind are made to feel inferior by statements made about your big noses, then yes, supporting a stereotype is bigotry.

 

[logician]

Religion in general. In any case, you don't have to agree with it, the point is that it's not bigotry, it's just an opinion that you disagree with. Calling opinions you disagree with "bigotry" is a way of suppressing dissent.

A common tactic used against athesim BTW.