Which part of the God Delusion did you find most offensive?

[lilithu]

The problem I see with the big three religions is a general promotion of belief without thinking.

That is a complaint that I often hear. But from where I stand, I'm not seeing a significant difference in reasoning skills between those who follow the Abrahamic traditions and those who don't.

 

[Magic Man]

And where in the Bible does it advocate belief without thought?

I can't give you any quotes, as my computer is being ridiculously slow, but I'm constantly told here and elsewhere that the reason I don't understand or can't see the logic in "God" or can't see Him in nature is because I don't believe. I would say that I should be able to see the evidence of Him so that I believe, rather than believe so that I can see the evidence of him.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I can't give you any quotes, as my computer is being ridiculously slow, but I'm constantly told here and elsewhere that the reason I don't understand or can't see the logic in "God" or can't see Him in nature is because I don't believe. I would say that I should be able to see the evidence of Him so that I believe, rather than believe so that I can see the evidence of him.

There is difference in considering belief and faith fundamental principles and considering them totalities. I can only recall reading in the Qur'an passages that implicitly stated that one should not entertain doubt. As far as how I have been brought up we are encouraged to study things out. Yes, faith must play a big part, but not to the abandonment of all else.

 

[Magic Man]

That is a complaint that I often hear. But from where I stand, I'm not seeing a significant difference in reasoning skills between those who follow the Abrahamic traditions and those who don't.

Well, then we are standing in two different places. The problem is that most people regardless of religion can be reasonable, but when it comes to religion, there are too many cases where they can't. Someone who is perfectly reasonable and logical in every day life with things, when questioned about religion falls back on things like "Because the Bible says so", or "I don't know, I just believe".

 

[gnomon]

I'm not discussing a personality flaw. I'm his discussing faulty logic based on personal bias.

Now I'm rethinking my own bias.

:slap:

I would like to read this interview because I just have a hard time thinking that this is the prime motivation behind his reasons. Dawkins has been writing for quite some time and others have tackled the issue of questioning the status of religion in our society prior to 9/11.

I wouldn't put the quote past him.

 

[lilithu]

Well, then we are standing in two different places. The problem is that most people regardless of religion can be reasonable, but when it comes to religion, there are too many cases where they can't. Someone who is perfectly reasonable and logical in every day life with things, when questioned about religion falls back on things like "Because the Bible says so", or "I don't know, I just believe".

If you can see that they are reasonable and logical about every day life things, what does it matter to you if they believe something without proof that you don't?

From my perspective, the only concern should be whether people's beliefs preclude them from being able to be productive, informed members of society. Obviously, if someone believes that they can fly and wants to jump off a building, I would try to dissuade them. If they believe that God told them to kill someone, I would try to stop them, by force if necessary. But if they are holding down a job, balancing the checkbook (something that is beyond me), feeding their family, and giving a little back to society every now and then, I don't see the problem with them believing in a god that I don't believe in. Or as the case may be, not believing in a god that I do believe in.

 

[lilithu]

Sorry fluffy, your thread about the book has become a thread about the man... again.

But I do hope the argument is helpful. I do think the reason why theists and some (not all) non-theists perceive Dawkins' words so differently is because of this basic difference in how we view religion. Dawkins may very sincerely believe that what he says is not offensive to theists because he sincerely believes that "religion is the cause" is a universally held view, or fact.

Lastly, I wanted to comment on this part of his statement:
"It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say ‘Enough!’"

It's the "as opposed to" that is the problem here.

 

[Apex]

Lastly, I wanted to comment on this part of his statement:
"It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say ‘Enough!’"

It's the "as opposed to" that is the problem here.

This is the statement that made me think of "annihilation of religion" several pages back. I can not see any other reason for this statement than to imply, in some degree or another, the demolition of religion. Why would you want to oppose someone simply because they are religious? I am not opposed to atheists or anyone of any religion simply because of their beliefs. I also noticed how he made a distinction between "people of intellect" and "people of faith".

 

[lilithu]

This is the statement that made me think of "annihilation of religion" several pages back. I can not see any other reason for this statement than to imply, in some degree or another, the demolition of religion. Why would you want to oppose someone simply because they are religious? I am not opposed to atheists or anyone of any religion simply because of their beliefs. I also noticed how he made a distinction between "people of intellect" and "people of faith".

I don't think that he's calling for the "annihilation of religion" here, tho I do think that he suggests it elsewhere. After all, if God is a "delusion" the ideal would be to "cure" people of that "delusion."

My objection to what he's saying here is that it's "us versus them." And as you pointed out, he's suggesting that intellect and faith are mutually exclusive.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

“My respect for the Abrahamic religions went up in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th. The last vestige of respect for the taboo disappeared as I watched the ‘Day of Prayer’ in Washington Cathedral, where people of mutually incompatible faiths united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place: religion. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say ‘Enough!’ Let our tribute to the dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.”

Interesting. Does this mean it's time for people of intellect to stand up agianst the sciences that gave us nukes and germ warfare, too?

 

[lilithu]

Interesting. Does this mean it's tome for people of intellect to stand up agianst the sciences that gave us nukes and germ warfare, too?

And gave us air planes for that matter. Yeah, the "logic" is about the same.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can't give you any quotes, as my computer is being ridiculously slow, but I'm constantly told here and elsewhere that the reason I don't understand or can't see the logic in "God" or can't see Him in nature is because I don't believe.

And therefore "the problem I see with the big three religions is a general promotion of belief without thinking"?

Your ignorant condescension is a tribute to belief without thinking! Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Tiberius]

I was watching an interview with Richard Dawkins the other day and heard him make the claim that if a theist read his book, they would not find it offensive. However, my experience has been the complete opposite because I have met many, many theists who have read his book and found it offensive.

Are there any theists here who found The God Delusion inoffensive?

If you did find The God Delusion offensive, which bit in particular (quotation or specific reference) did you find most offensive?

There are people who take offence if you don't make a bed the same way as they do.

 

[Magic Man]

And therefore "the problem I see with the big three religions is a general promotion of belief without thinking"?

Your ignorant condescension is a tribute to belief without thinking! Stop embarrassing yourself.

Informative as always. It's odd to me that you see it as condescension, as it is nothing of the sort. I don't think I'm better than this religion. It's also not at all ignorant, considering it takes into account my past as a Catholic and the conversations I've had and seen with many different theists here. It is a fact that these religions promote this type of thing, not an opinion. It is not how every adherent goes about it, but nevertheless it is promoted by the core religion. Also, the implication that my statement would not be taken as a statement made by thinking is laughable. Do some research and you'll find this teaching very prevalent among these religions.

Thank you, though, for another empty attempt at argument. Your kindness is always appreciated and productive.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

You should try reading some of C.S. Lewis' works on Christianity. I think books such as 'Mere Christianity' and 'Miracles' go to show that a lot of thought can and should be put into religious faith. I think at least the first can be viewed free online.

You (obviously) won't agree with what he writes, but you can hardly walk away from it thinking that religion requires no thought from the individual.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Informative as always. It's odd to me that you see it as condescension, as it is nothing of the sort. I don't think I'm better than this religion.

Of course you do.

 

[lilithu]

It's also not at all ignorant, considering it takes into account my past as a Catholic and the conversations I've had and seen with many different theists here. It is a fact that these religions promote this type of thing, not an opinion. It is not how every adherent goes about it, but nevertheless it is promoted by the core religion. Also, the implication that my statement would not be taken as a statement made by thinking is laughable. Do some research and you'll find this teaching very prevalent among these religions.

mball, I have no doubt that it is your own experiences as an exChristian that have led you to these conclusions. But my experiences are different. Every day I interact with people of faith, and I'm not just talking UUs, I'm talking Christians, Jews, and Muslims. (I would like to interact with Hindus and Buddhists more but they don't seem very involved in activism.) We meet in coalition meetings and we map out strategies, and also joke around. My portfolio is environmental justice, but my colleagues work with similar interfaith coalition groups on economic and racial justice, international peace and security, and reproductive choice, comprehensive sex ed, and BGLT rights. (Yes, there are Christians, Catholics even, who advocate for repro choice and BGLT rights.)

Every session starts with a prayer. And no, I don't always believe everything that is said in the prayers, but it doesn't matter. These people work their butts off for justice, and they do so rooted in their faith. It really pains me to know that just because we start off with a prayer, many people would be unable to look past that and see that everything that follows after that is rooted in reality and reason. Just because they are religious there are secular groups that won't work with them. We want the same things, the people who want the opposite are massively well organized, and yet we won't work together because the secular groups don't trust the faith groups. THAT is the reality that I see. I don't find it to be particularly rational.

I think your statement is untrue for all three Abrahamic religions, but I can guess why Jay might be particularly incensed. To say that Judaism discourages critical thinking shows a distinct lack of familiarity on your part. More than any other tradition, more than even Buddhism (which anti-Abrahamics love to lift up so much), Judaism reveres scholarship and critical thought. A rabbi is a scholar.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

His position is preposterously ignorant and condescending. To stigmatize three religious traditions because of what he heard some people say on an web-based forum is a joke. Does he honestly believe that such institutions as University of the Chicago Divinity School or the Hebrew Union College (or countless similar examples) spend their time in thoughtless devotion? It's foolishly propagated prejudicial drivel, nothing more.

 

[fantome profane]

His position is preposterously ignorant and condescending. To stigmatize three religious traditions because of what he heard some people say on an web-based forum is a joke. Does he honestly believe that such institutions as University of the Chicago Divinity School or the Hebrew Union College (or countless similar examples) spend their time in thoughtless devotion? It's foolishly propagated prejudicial drivel, nothing more.

But which is more indicative of mainstream religion, the scholarly theologian or the web based commentator? Which is having a greater effect on government policy? Which is having a greater effect on society?

I agree that the fact that Dawkins doesn’t acknowledge the more thoughtful intellectual religious position is a critical flaw in his premise and an indication of ignorance on his part. But if he had done this I believe that he could have justified his decision to focus on more mainstream (common) religious expressions.

 

[lilithu]

I agree that the fact that Dawkins doesn’t acknowledge the more thoughtful intellectual religious position is a critical flaw in his premise and an indication of ignorance on his part. But if he had done this I believe that he could have justified his decision to focus on more mainstream (common) religious expressions.

1. If Dawkins had said that he recognizes that there is a diverse range of beliefs, positions, and approaches in the Abrahmic traditions, but that he is concerned about some particularly virulent strains of thought and how they are leading to things like 9/11, I would have been in complete agreement with him. But that's NOT what he said.

2. What is wrong with more mainstream (common) religious expressions? It's common to pray. So what? You may not think there's any utility to it, that it's a waste of time, but prayer is NOT what led to 9/11. Mainstream (common) religious expressions happen every day, without violence. Every week, people go to churches, shuls, mosques, temples, no problem. It does not hinder our ability to function in society in the least. For us, we find it centering and life-affirming. (Tho if anyone is paying attention to the time, I have obviously chosen to forego church today )

How did the 9/11 attacks, which had much more to do with resentment of globalization, economic imperialism, and the imposition of Western mores on the Islamic world become justification for an attack on religion in general? While I recognize that the consequences of this line of "reasoning" aren't as deadly, I see it as akin to Bush's reasoning, which got us into two wars. Pick an "Other" and blame it one them.

Several of you have said that because criticizing religion is a "taboo" (which is news to me given the existence of this forum), we aren't able to address the real issues that caused 9/11. Yes, by all means, let's address the real issues instead of looking for an easy scapegoat.