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

[Magic Man]

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.

So, do you think that I don't recognize there is a diverse range of beliefs, positions and approaches in the Abrahamic traditions?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

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.

I think that most people brought up with a childhood religion become apathetic (either non-attending but identifying with the religion, or paying lip service to it) and their intellectual understanding of their religion therefore rarely extends beyond childhood concepts. Therefore the level of "web based commentator" understanding is more common, but the apathetic element means they really don't exert effect on anyone.

The prolific religious scholar is a rarity, which is unfortunate because it generally means that there are only a few people to offer the public religious opinions on political/social topics. The religiously clued up will explore the issue personally, but the majority of the religious will follow their religious leaders' statement just because it is under the banner they most identify with. In that way, the majority do not really exert pressure, but act as extensions of the leaders' opinion.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Or it's based on study and knowedge, even though it goes against you narrow view of things. It has been helped by my time here, but that is a small part of my overall knowledge of the subject. I'm sorry that you have to consider anything that contradicts your ideas to be ignorant and condescending, but you are wrong. There is nothing condescending in what I say, and that would seem to be evident by the fact that you will neither back up your statements nor explain them in any detail. Of course you only take my comments the way you want which is evidenced by the fact that you like to isolate half a line and "respond" to that. I never said there were not people who put a lot of thought into their Abrahamic religion. In fact I've said the opposite. What I expressly said was that the religions promote a general belief without thinking. There is nothing in that statement that says that all adherents of those faiths always believe without thinking, just that it is a teaching of the faiths.

I, in fact, said that not all adherents follow this path, but you probably missed that part as it agrees with your ideas, and wouldn't further your snide comments towards me. It would be nice if you realized that calling people names and calling their ideas unfounded names doesn't help anyone. There is nothing about what I said which is prejudiced or drivel.

Thank you again for your rousing debate technique of just calling anything that contradicts your views "rubbish" or "ignorant", etc., without actually trying to debate the issue. If you really don't like my point of view, those things only help to push me farther away from your position. Rational, non-name-calling discourse of ideas and their logicality and evidence goes much further towards coming to an understanding. I invite you to give it a try.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I think that most people brought up with a childhood religion become apathetic (either non-attending but identifying with the religion, or paying lip service to it) and their intellectual understanding of their religion therefore rarely extends beyond childhood concepts. Therefore the level of "web based commentator" understanding is more common, but the apathetic element means they really don't exert effect on anyone.

The prolific religious scholar is a rarity, which is unfortunate because it generally means that there are only a few people to offer the public religious opinions on political/social topics. The religiously clued up will explore the issue personally, but the majority of the religious will follow their religious leaders' statement just because it is under the banner they most identify with. In that way, the majority do not really exert pressure, but act as extensions of the leaders' opinion.

Excellent observation! It's true even for LDS. :yes:

 

[Apex]

A lot of these arguments seem to be trying to take the actions of the extreme few and apply them to the whole.

 

[lilithu]

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?

I'm not saying this to be critical of mball, who I think is an intelligent and kind young man, but I don't think he's given much thought to these schools, Jay.

I can't blame him. When I was in the Georgetown masters program, my first proposal for a thesis centered on tracing American Anti-Intellectualism, starting with the Puritans onward. My adviser kindly asked whether I had researched this proposal beforehand, given that the Puritans (Congregationalists) founded both Harvard and Yale. That did kind of put a damper on my idea and I decided to pick another topic.

I don't think that most people, whether religious or otherwise, know that most of our greatest academic institutions are affiliated with religious institutions. To say that religion discourages intellect ignores the fact that both Harvard and Yale were started by Congregationalists, Brandeis by Jews, Columbia by Anglicans (now Episcopalians), Princeton by Presbyterians, Penn by Quakers, Georgetown by Catholics, etc., etc. Oberlin was founded by evangelical Christians, and it was the first college to admit blacks and women.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Excellent observation! It's true even for LDS. :yes:

Indeed. No religion is particularly exempt from having its members follow the leader.

I think, however, that the LDS church is better than some religions in allowing the members to decide on certain issues rather than defining every last detail.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Indeed. No religion is particularly exempt from having its members follow the leader.

I think, however, that the LDS church is better than some religions in allowing the members to decide on certain issues rather than defining every last detail.

Maybe, but not good enough in that department for me.

 

[lilithu]

So, do you think that I don't recognize there is a diverse range of beliefs, positions and approaches in the Abrahamic traditions?

I do think that you recognize the diverse range. Otherwise, we would not get along.

I was talking about Dawkins. I don't "get along" with Dawkins.

I am perplexed that you are supporting him, and am arguing with you as a result of it, but that is not going to change my impression of you formed from many more conversations than just this one.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm not saying this to be critical of mball, who I think is an intelligent and kind young man, but I don't think he's given much thought to these schools, Jay.

I can't blame him. When I was in the Georgetown masters program, my first proposal for a thesis centered on tracing American Anti-Intellectualism, starting with the Puritans onward. My adviser kindly asked whether I had researched this proposal beforehand, given that the Puritans (Congregationalists) founded both Harvard and Yale. That did kind of put a damper on my idea and I decided to pick another topic.

I don't think that most people, whether religious or otherwise, know that most of our greatest academic institutions are affiliated with religious institutions. To say that religion discourages intellect ignores the fact that both Harvard and Yale were started by Congregationalists, Brandeis by Jews, Columbia by Anglicans (now Episcopalians), Princeton by Presbyterians, Penn by Quakers, Georgetown by Catholics, etc., etc. Oberlin was founded by evangelical Christians, and it was the first college to admit blacks and women.

Thank you. It seems that the problem here is that my statement is being taken too far. I readily agree that a lot of progress has been made over time due to learning promoted by religious institutions. I'm just talking about specific things, like the basic premise of believing and having faith before being given a reason. That is not to say that people don't think about it or study it and delve deep into it. It is just saying that at its core, there is this idea that one needs to believe no matter what, even before being given a reason.

This is where Dawkins gets his idea of religion being "protected" in the way that when it gets attacked, people are quick to call the attacks blasphemy and ignorance, and the "work of the Devil", without rationally considering the criticism. It's such an emotional topic that people have a really hard time not taking offense to any little criticism, which makes it hard to change anything about it. His idea is to take the emotion out of it as much as possible to look at it objectively without being ostracized as "evil".

 

[Magic Man]

I do think that you recognize the diverse range. Otherwise, we would not get along.

I was talking about Dawkins. I don't "get along" with Dawkins.

I am perplexed that you are supporting him, and am arguing with you as a result of it, but that is not going to change my impression of you formed from many more conversations than just this one.

I only ask because I think that if you keep this in mind about me, then my other comments here take on a completely different context. For instance, when I say that the Abrahamic religions promote belief without thinking, take it not as me saying that every adherent of those religions believes without ever having thought about it. Instead take it as what it was meant to say, that the religion promotes that sort of thing at its core, but there are many ways of going about it that differ from that core.

I don't always support Dawkins. He has his flaws, and I think in some ways he is too radical, and doesn't take enough into account. On the other hand, I think a lot of his ideas get thrown out by theists simply because of these flaws, and not because of any inherent problems with the reasoning of the ideas themselves. I would take a much different approach if I was him, but he still makes some good, valid points, which I think get lost among his other less-informed comments.

 

[lilithu]

I only ask because I think that if you keep this in mind about me, then my other comments here take on a completely different context. For instance, when I say that the Abrahamic religions promote belief without thinking, take it not as me saying that every adherent of those religions believes without ever having thought about it. Instead take it as what it was meant to say, that the religion promotes that sort of thing at its core, but there are many ways of going about it that differ from that core.

I'm not taking it as you saying that every adherent believes without thinking. I know you don't think that. I am disagreeing with your basic premise, that religion promotes unthinking at its core.

And I certainly, CERTAINLY disagree with the assertion that religion is the cause of 9/11.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

The problem we find here is one of the unwillingness to apply the label 'religion' to extremism. In all fairness, that label can be applied, so I think one needs to speak in terms of moderate and extremist religion. Even 'proper religion X' and 'twisted religion X' There is no real allowance in the term religion itself to differentiate between the two.

 

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

And I certainly, CERTAINLY disagree with the assertion that religion is the cause of 9/11.

Perhaps this problem is more to do with the way we are using language. Nobody can argue that the actual people who flew the planes weren't doing it for a religious reasons. However, these people were influenced by leaders who simply USE religion to manipulate people into doing things that help their cause. In a sense, religion was the motive for the individuals who flew the planes, but the motives for the people influencing them were more historical, sociological and economical. Terrorism isn't religious, but some leaders use religion to motivate people to do bad things.

- David

 

[lilithu]

Perhaps this problem is more to do with the way we are using language. Nobody can argue that the actual people who flew the planes weren't doing it for a religious reasons.

I agree, but Mother Teresa spent her life tending to the poor for religious reasons. To say that their "religious reasons" is equal to religion is like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer is equal to Americans or whites or males... I truly do not understand how people can not see this.

However, these people were influenced by leaders who simply USE religion to manipulate people into doing things that help their cause. In a sense, religion was the motive for the individuals who flew the planes, but the motives for the people influencing them were more historical, sociological and economical. Terrorism isn't religious, but some leaders use religion to motivate people to do bad things.

- David

Pretty much agree.

 

[lilithu]

The problem we find here is one of the unwillingness to apply the label 'religion' to extremism. In all fairness, that label can be applied, so I think one needs to speak in terms of moderate and extremist religion. Even 'proper religion X' and 'twisted religion X' There is no real allowance in the term religion itself to differentiate between the two.

But how is extremist religion different from extremist nationalism or extremist ideology? The problem is extremism.

edit:
Gah! I've been on these forums too long, I've confused myself here. Nix the last sentence. The problem is, as I've been saying over and over, is creating an "Other" and viewing the world as "us versus them."

 

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

I agree, but Mother Teresa spent her life tending to the poor for religious reasons. To say that their "religious reasons" is equal to religion is like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer is equal to Americans or whites or males... I truly do not understand how people can not see this.

That was pretty much the point I was trying to make. =)

 

[misanthropic_clown]

But how is extremist religion different from extremist nationalism or extremist ideology? The problem is extremism.

True, but something taken to the extreme is still rooted in the same something, and thus to exclude its title is not particularly proper. To prefix it is the only suitable course of action.

 

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

True, but something taken to the extreme is still rooted in the same something, and thus to exclude its title is not particularly proper. To prefix it is the only suitable course of action.

This is correct. I am confused by people who say that religious extremism is not a problem rooted in religion. On the other hand, people always find things to be extreme about. If it wasn't religion it would be something else!

 

[lilithu]

I am confused by people who say that religious extremism is not a problem rooted in religion. On the other hand, people always find things to be extreme about. If it wasn't religion it would be something else!

My objection to the first sentence is answered in the second two. To say that the problem of religious extremism is rooted in religion is to say that there is some inherent problem in religion that, in small doses is benign but in large doses is malignant. Thus, religion becomes something that we merely tolerate when it's in small doses and must aggressively treat when it it's in large doses. Sorry, but I do not agree.

I'd say that Mother Theresa had a very large dose of religion in her. Do did Dr. King. So does Desmond Tutu. Religion has been used to both divide and to unify. Like all other human constructs, it can lead to both good things and bad things. It's a very powerful construct so it can lead to powerful good and powerful bad, but there is nothing inherently wrong with religion.