This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1gerrymcdonald
Currently reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. A truly wonderful book, and one I would recommend to anyone interested in the virus of religion. I enjoy all of Dawkin's work, and think that his books should be standard reading in schools and universities. But then, that's only my opinion, and it's all about opinions, nest-ce pas?
2Jargoneer
There has been a lot of conversation about Dawkins on the Happy Heathens noticeboard if you are interested.
3janey47
I'm currently reading The God Delusion as well, although I'm kind of monitoring my reading because I think the book lacks intellectual rigor, to say the least, and if I read too much in one sitting, I'll throw the book at the wall.
I can give you my concerns/criticisms so far, if you're interested.
I can give you my concerns/criticisms so far, if you're interested.
5janey47
Here are my problems wrt The God Delusion.
First, you should know that I have only read a few chapters. I had to put the book down for a little break, because he's really bugging me and I want to actually finish it.
He ridicules religion for being simplistic -- but can't even get the facts straight on what a saint is in Catholicism, or the role of Mary. Simplistic but not worth researching?
He writes about how much of a pass we give religion in legal jurisprudence -- and cites a 2006 Supreme Court decision for it, while NEGLECTING to mention that the 06 ruling overturns a long, long line of decisions barring the conduct allowed in the 06 ruling. The problem is that you can't just cite this case for the facts of the case. You need to see *why* the SC overturned its prior line of cases and in fact the SC is probably, in this case, shaking its finger in the face of a Congress that it thinks is being too lenient on religion and showing us what the consequences could be.
He writes about how bad religion is for the world today, but he backs up his statements with inaccurate and oversimplified generalizations about current affairs and with citations to 4th century theologians and the Crusades and the like. So, first, don't tell me about the Crusades or the Inquisition, dude, we ALL agree they were bad.
But second, if you're going to talk about current affairs, get the role of religion in them right:
If you're going to object to the phrase "ethnic cleansing" (which, by the way, I object to as well), don't replace it with an even more euphemistic and incorrect term ("religious cleansing"). Use the real word: Genocide. Maybe the reason that Northern Ireland's combatants are called "nationalists" and "loyalists" is because that's a more accurate term than Catholics and Prots. We all know perfectly well that the "troubles" there were caused by Britain, just as the civil war in Iraq is not a religious war but a political one, the opportunity for which arose when the US came in and scrambled the political structure.
He focuses on Christianity "because it's the religion {he is} most familiar with." I say he should do his research rather than relying on his impressionistic memories. Asshole.
He gives Buddhism a pass because, as far as I can see, he just doesn't want to do the work to look into it. I try to practice it as an ethical framework, but I have had plenty of arguments with people who say with a straight face "It's not a religion" even as they sit on a dais in front of statues of the Buddha and of Kwan Yin, to which offerings of food have been made and before which people are bowing. smh If all religion is bad, go for it. But don't say that all religion is bad and then define stuff you like as "not religion." That's intellectually unsound.
And for that matter, he says that the Church of England is the least distasteful, and I think he desperately needs to examine his reasons for that. Maybe, just MAYBE it's because the C of E is the one he's had the most real experience with, and maybe, just MAYBE he could examine whether this experience could indicate that the better you know a religion, the less evil it seems.
I'm an atheist, too. But I dislike the shrill voice irrespective of what side it's on. If you say that you know the truth because you're a scientist, then subject all your arguments to the intellectual rigor that science demands. Either that, or don't try to draw parallels between scientific method and your biased and prejudicial statements.
I'm disgusted.
Sam Harris does the same shit.
I think that if your hypothesis is correct, it will convince people on its merits. I don't think you have to use hyperbole or shading or bias. I think that *weakens* your argument. I think Dawkins is a terrible representative of atheists -- the group he claims to stand for.
First, you should know that I have only read a few chapters. I had to put the book down for a little break, because he's really bugging me and I want to actually finish it.
He ridicules religion for being simplistic -- but can't even get the facts straight on what a saint is in Catholicism, or the role of Mary. Simplistic but not worth researching?
He writes about how much of a pass we give religion in legal jurisprudence -- and cites a 2006 Supreme Court decision for it, while NEGLECTING to mention that the 06 ruling overturns a long, long line of decisions barring the conduct allowed in the 06 ruling. The problem is that you can't just cite this case for the facts of the case. You need to see *why* the SC overturned its prior line of cases and in fact the SC is probably, in this case, shaking its finger in the face of a Congress that it thinks is being too lenient on religion and showing us what the consequences could be.
He writes about how bad religion is for the world today, but he backs up his statements with inaccurate and oversimplified generalizations about current affairs and with citations to 4th century theologians and the Crusades and the like. So, first, don't tell me about the Crusades or the Inquisition, dude, we ALL agree they were bad.
But second, if you're going to talk about current affairs, get the role of religion in them right:
If you're going to object to the phrase "ethnic cleansing" (which, by the way, I object to as well), don't replace it with an even more euphemistic and incorrect term ("religious cleansing"). Use the real word: Genocide. Maybe the reason that Northern Ireland's combatants are called "nationalists" and "loyalists" is because that's a more accurate term than Catholics and Prots. We all know perfectly well that the "troubles" there were caused by Britain, just as the civil war in Iraq is not a religious war but a political one, the opportunity for which arose when the US came in and scrambled the political structure.
He focuses on Christianity "because it's the religion {he is} most familiar with." I say he should do his research rather than relying on his impressionistic memories. Asshole.
He gives Buddhism a pass because, as far as I can see, he just doesn't want to do the work to look into it. I try to practice it as an ethical framework, but I have had plenty of arguments with people who say with a straight face "It's not a religion" even as they sit on a dais in front of statues of the Buddha and of Kwan Yin, to which offerings of food have been made and before which people are bowing. smh If all religion is bad, go for it. But don't say that all religion is bad and then define stuff you like as "not religion." That's intellectually unsound.
And for that matter, he says that the Church of England is the least distasteful, and I think he desperately needs to examine his reasons for that. Maybe, just MAYBE it's because the C of E is the one he's had the most real experience with, and maybe, just MAYBE he could examine whether this experience could indicate that the better you know a religion, the less evil it seems.
I'm an atheist, too. But I dislike the shrill voice irrespective of what side it's on. If you say that you know the truth because you're a scientist, then subject all your arguments to the intellectual rigor that science demands. Either that, or don't try to draw parallels between scientific method and your biased and prejudicial statements.
I'm disgusted.
Sam Harris does the same shit.
I think that if your hypothesis is correct, it will convince people on its merits. I don't think you have to use hyperbole or shading or bias. I think that *weakens* your argument. I think Dawkins is a terrible representative of atheists -- the group he claims to stand for.
6SimonW11
I have not read this book but your assessment agrees perfectly with the impression I have gained of him from various radio discusion and debates. every time he dismisses an argument he reveals his own ignorance. He probably does more damage to the cause of atheism than anyone other living atheist.
7janey47
A couple of thoughts.
First, I strongly recommend Daniel Dennett's book Breaking the Spell, which considers many of the same issues, not *quite* overlapping but close, and does so in an elegant and intellectual manner.
Second, I saw Dawkins speak last night in a milieu in which he was greeted as enthusiastically as a rock star, and in which he was asked to explain his thoughts rather than support them against challenge. In that environment, he was (mostly) charming and interesting. When he speaks of the majesty of evolution, his sense of awe is apparent and is really quite lovely to see.
He set up a few straw men to knock down rudely, but for the most part because he wasn't challenged, he didn't need to resort to ad hominem attacks.
Finally, I see that my earlier post has been flagged. Following is the guideline for flagging posts:
"Flag abuse" is a way for users to monitor the Talk discussions. If you see something wildly innappropriate (such as spam) in a post, you can click the "flag abuse" link, and a little red flag will appear. After three separate people have flagged a post, it will be deleted. "Abuse" is pretty simply defined, use your common sense. Generally, it includes anything that violates LibraryThing's Terms of Use and falls within the realm of "don't be a jerk". Please do not flag posts simply because you disagree with what is said, or if someone criticizes your favorite book, author, or idea - that's not abuse, it's a difference of opinion.
I would ask that whoever flagged my post explain to me why they did so. I am new here, and I don't understand what is abusive about my post. Thank you.
First, I strongly recommend Daniel Dennett's book Breaking the Spell, which considers many of the same issues, not *quite* overlapping but close, and does so in an elegant and intellectual manner.
Second, I saw Dawkins speak last night in a milieu in which he was greeted as enthusiastically as a rock star, and in which he was asked to explain his thoughts rather than support them against challenge. In that environment, he was (mostly) charming and interesting. When he speaks of the majesty of evolution, his sense of awe is apparent and is really quite lovely to see.
He set up a few straw men to knock down rudely, but for the most part because he wasn't challenged, he didn't need to resort to ad hominem attacks.
Finally, I see that my earlier post has been flagged. Following is the guideline for flagging posts:
"Flag abuse" is a way for users to monitor the Talk discussions. If you see something wildly innappropriate (such as spam) in a post, you can click the "flag abuse" link, and a little red flag will appear. After three separate people have flagged a post, it will be deleted. "Abuse" is pretty simply defined, use your common sense. Generally, it includes anything that violates LibraryThing's Terms of Use and falls within the realm of "don't be a jerk". Please do not flag posts simply because you disagree with what is said, or if someone criticizes your favorite book, author, or idea - that's not abuse, it's a difference of opinion.
I would ask that whoever flagged my post explain to me why they did so. I am new here, and I don't understand what is abusive about my post. Thank you.
8Thalia
Some people simply flag posts that they don't agree with, that go against their own opinion. Maybe because you are a "disgusted" "atheist" who uses the word "shit" (to pick some words that certain people might find offensive...). Or they flagged it for the heck of it because they think it's funny (see the Terry Pratchett thread in the Humour group... almost every entry there is flagged several times). They don't get that the abuse flag is there for a different reason. And you can't "accidently" flag a post as it asks you if you're sure you want to flag it.
So don't worry about it too much. I haven't read the book you are talking about, in fact, I had never even heard of it before, and I found nothing at all abusive in your post. It's your opinion and you're entitled to that.
So don't worry about it too much. I haven't read the book you are talking about, in fact, I had never even heard of it before, and I found nothing at all abusive in your post. It's your opinion and you're entitled to that.
10hailelib
My initial reaction was to wonder why the post had been flagged. There's nothing there that rates flagging. But I've noticed that flags are once again appearing on posts for no apparent reason. Maybe our mad flagger is back!
11bduguid
>I think that if your hypothesis is correct, it will convince people on its merits.
This seems a strange view to hold in an argument that is all about persuading people who are inherently irrational.
Personally, I find the fact that Dawkins spends little time getting the nit-pickery right to be entirely appropriate to his subject - it's like suggesting that a scientist attacking crystal healing needs to pay close attention to all the different attributes claimed of various crystals when it's patently obvious that the whole idea is nonsense.
This seems a strange view to hold in an argument that is all about persuading people who are inherently irrational.
Personally, I find the fact that Dawkins spends little time getting the nit-pickery right to be entirely appropriate to his subject - it's like suggesting that a scientist attacking crystal healing needs to pay close attention to all the different attributes claimed of various crystals when it's patently obvious that the whole idea is nonsense.
12janey47
If it is "patently" obvious then the argument need not be made.
If the argument is to be made, then doing a little research isn't too much to ask.
Really, just a little research. All I ask is that he get his facts straight. That's not much.
You can categorize it as nit-pickery but if it's really that simple, it should be easy to find the information, no?
It's so simple that it's stupid, but it's not nearly simple enough to research or explain correctly?
Whatever.
If the argument is to be made, then doing a little research isn't too much to ask.
Really, just a little research. All I ask is that he get his facts straight. That's not much.
You can categorize it as nit-pickery but if it's really that simple, it should be easy to find the information, no?
It's so simple that it's stupid, but it's not nearly simple enough to research or explain correctly?
Whatever.
13SimonW11
This seems a strange view to hold in an argument that is all about persuading people who are inherently irrational.
Yes, that is exactly the sort of ad hominum attack we are talking about. a Physiologist is supposed to have remarked on hearing of the catholic doctrine of the assumption "I was not there so I don't know if she rose into the air but I can tell you that if she did she blacked out at 30,000 feet" You see how much more effective that is than saying, "You are wrong because you are wrong" Which is all the first statement boils down to and even mocking the absurdities of the assumption loses it effectiveness when the topic is "The need for moral education in schools." or "The implications of Birth control for teenagers. and other such radio topics.
Yes, that is exactly the sort of ad hominum attack we are talking about. a Physiologist is supposed to have remarked on hearing of the catholic doctrine of the assumption "I was not there so I don't know if she rose into the air but I can tell you that if she did she blacked out at 30,000 feet" You see how much more effective that is than saying, "You are wrong because you are wrong" Which is all the first statement boils down to and even mocking the absurdities of the assumption loses it effectiveness when the topic is "The need for moral education in schools." or "The implications of Birth control for teenagers. and other such radio topics.
15KromesTomes
Well, I can tell you from personal experience that some catholics (and other religious fundamentalists) ARE sure people will go to hell if they don't accept Jesus ... further, regarding the quote:
"Can you imagine the reaction to a religious fundamentalist who attacked science by (say) misstating the theory of relativity, and then responded to correction by saying, 'Well, that's what I've always heard, and anyway it doesn't matter if I get the details wrong because my point is that the whole notion is bunk?'"
I don't have to imagine it ... it happens all the time ... the only difference is that they don't even bother addressing the corrections .. just look at the whole "intelligent design" controversy, where most ID people have a false idea of theory of evolution.
"Can you imagine the reaction to a religious fundamentalist who attacked science by (say) misstating the theory of relativity, and then responded to correction by saying, 'Well, that's what I've always heard, and anyway it doesn't matter if I get the details wrong because my point is that the whole notion is bunk?'"
I don't have to imagine it ... it happens all the time ... the only difference is that they don't even bother addressing the corrections .. just look at the whole "intelligent design" controversy, where most ID people have a false idea of theory of evolution.
16SimonW11
It does have a certain appeal doesn't it?
"We have a duty to stop fishing in the north sea because we hold the welfare of all animals in a sacred trust"
"You are inherently irrational therefore, yah boo Sucks."
How can he fail to get the average listener to breakfast radio to agree with him.
Sorry bduguid but you engage in debate not to sway the irrational but to sway the undecided. when you appear on radio, write a book or get interviewed by The Tablet that is the audience you are really addressing.
"We have a duty to stop fishing in the north sea because we hold the welfare of all animals in a sacred trust"
"You are inherently irrational therefore, yah boo Sucks."
How can he fail to get the average listener to breakfast radio to agree with him.
Sorry bduguid but you engage in debate not to sway the irrational but to sway the undecided. when you appear on radio, write a book or get interviewed by The Tablet that is the audience you are really addressing.
18SimonW11
You know where I work we have four young men who share a workspace. One is Somali and unsuprisingly a Muslim. two of the others are from Southern Africa: A Penticostal and a Catholic. the fourth is I think just bemused.
Whenever I pass their area they are discussing religion. they smile, they laugh and they call on me to support their view on the nature of evil, or original sin.or whatever the topic of the day is.
They are quick to point out any error in the internal consistancy of each other arguments.and respectful of each others core beliefs. It is a glimpse into a better world.
Whenever I pass their area they are discussing religion. they smile, they laugh and they call on me to support their view on the nature of evil, or original sin.or whatever the topic of the day is.
They are quick to point out any error in the internal consistancy of each other arguments.and respectful of each others core beliefs. It is a glimpse into a better world.
19KromesTomes
Perodicticus: Humor me ... are you saying I incorrectly lumped catholics with "other fundamentalists"?
20SimonW11
what do you mean by fundamentalist KromesTomes? What is a a non-fundamentalist Christian? How do they differ?
Simon
Simon
21KromesTomes
SimonW11: By "fundamentalist," I mean someone who takes a pretty literal reading of the bible ... who believes what the bible says is literally true and the things in it literally happened as reported ... so I'm sure you can see how I think these people would differ from a non-fundamentalist Christian.
22SimonW11
Oh yes what Catholics refer to as the Lollard heresy. Well I think we can safely assume that since they condemn this belief as heretical. They would take the views of people who thought they held that belief as proceeding out of ignorance.
Simon
Simon
23janey47
KromesTomes: Just because "some" Catholics, or "some" other people or "some" people of a given religion believe that everyone who disagrees with them is going to hell does not condemn the religion they purport to follow.
I would have an easier time with Dawkins if he were focusing on ignorant people rather than condemning all religion.
I also need to point out again that Dawkins *only* condemns religions about which he holds negative impressionistic intuitions. He begins his book by saying that he's going to give Buddhism a pass because he thinks it's more of an ethical framework than it is a religion.
And, again, while *I* try to practice it as an ethical framework, there are plenty of practicing Buddhists who believe in the supernatural and in matters that cannot be proved by science, such as reincarnation.
So Dawkins is cherry-picking here. And what galls me is that he cherry-picks based on his intuition, rather than on any principled reason, such as he might reach through fairly elementary research into the religions he condemns.
If Dawkins can't be bothered with research and inquiry, why should religious people?
Although I am not among the 75% of American people who think that evolution is merely an unproven theory, I have to say that my understanding of it is based on my trust -- or shall I say "faith" -- in the methods of those who know more about it. What makes that different in any objective sense than the rest of the country, who rely in trust or faith on the word of other people? And don't tell me it's "science" -- that begs the question.
In his documentary, Dawkins and the people with whom he debates take opposite views and support them in exactly the same words. From a content-neutral standpoint, there is no distinction between them. Yet Dawkins ridicules the people who use his own method of argument.
And THAT is what I dislike about him.
I would have an easier time with Dawkins if he were focusing on ignorant people rather than condemning all religion.
I also need to point out again that Dawkins *only* condemns religions about which he holds negative impressionistic intuitions. He begins his book by saying that he's going to give Buddhism a pass because he thinks it's more of an ethical framework than it is a religion.
And, again, while *I* try to practice it as an ethical framework, there are plenty of practicing Buddhists who believe in the supernatural and in matters that cannot be proved by science, such as reincarnation.
So Dawkins is cherry-picking here. And what galls me is that he cherry-picks based on his intuition, rather than on any principled reason, such as he might reach through fairly elementary research into the religions he condemns.
If Dawkins can't be bothered with research and inquiry, why should religious people?
Although I am not among the 75% of American people who think that evolution is merely an unproven theory, I have to say that my understanding of it is based on my trust -- or shall I say "faith" -- in the methods of those who know more about it. What makes that different in any objective sense than the rest of the country, who rely in trust or faith on the word of other people? And don't tell me it's "science" -- that begs the question.
In his documentary, Dawkins and the people with whom he debates take opposite views and support them in exactly the same words. From a content-neutral standpoint, there is no distinction between them. Yet Dawkins ridicules the people who use his own method of argument.
And THAT is what I dislike about him.
24SimonW11
Indeed Janey, Buddhism shows no more lack of supernatural beings or followers capable of rape and pillage than any other religion,for Dawkins to think otherwise just shows that he has dismissed it as no more worthy of his attention than the others.
Simon
Simon
25janey47
I got to wondering this morning why he doesn't take on various New Age theorists if a belief in the supernatural is such a problem.
He's trying to hide his agenda but he's not doing it very well.
He's trying to hide his agenda but he's not doing it very well.
26KromesTomes
Well, although I quite enjoy stirring things up, truth be told I'm not a big fan of Dawkins, I'm just less of a fan of religion ... one of the differences in "having fatih" in what scientists says abou evolution, as opposed to religious faith, is that in the former, one is having faith that there is basis for evolution that follows the scientific method ... that's generally not what's going on with religious faith ... and regarding the Lollard heresy, who exactly decided this was heresy?
27SimonW11
and regarding the Lollard heresy, who exactly decided this was heresy?
I have no idea who and less wish to look up the name of the the pope who signed that particular piece of vellum. However you would I think be hard pressed to find any catholiic who did not agree that the "living body of the church" was the final authority rather than those works that church had gathered together and edited as an aid to its followers.
The position of the church as an organisation is clear. The bible has been shown to be wrong before and will most probably be wrong again. Are there people who call themselves catholics and do not accept the authority of their priesthood? Yes, just as for that matter the priests claim many as catholics who would be angry and dismayed to find themselves so named. But accepting the authority of the catholic priesthood is I think as good an objective marker of catholism as you can find.
I have no idea who and less wish to look up the name of the the pope who signed that particular piece of vellum. However you would I think be hard pressed to find any catholiic who did not agree that the "living body of the church" was the final authority rather than those works that church had gathered together and edited as an aid to its followers.
The position of the church as an organisation is clear. The bible has been shown to be wrong before and will most probably be wrong again. Are there people who call themselves catholics and do not accept the authority of their priesthood? Yes, just as for that matter the priests claim many as catholics who would be angry and dismayed to find themselves so named. But accepting the authority of the catholic priesthood is I think as good an objective marker of catholism as you can find.
28SimonW11
what scientists says abou evolution, as opposed to religious faith, is that in the former, one is having faith that there is basis for evolution that follows the scientific method ... that's generally not what's going on with religious faith
umm I do not think that faith means the same thing for all parties here. when a Catholic talks about religous faith he means the need to maintain certainty in an absolute truth. This is nothing like the Scientific ideal which is to prove, that is test, all theories or presumed facts and be williing to abandon those presumed facts and theories, if the testing reveals them to be false. Scientists have it seems to me no use for certainty.
If you think evolution happens, whether one is a catholic or not you should do so because of the evidence not because it is an absolute truth, Evolutionary theories are explicitly not matters of faith in catholism. Catholics are therefore expected to make up their own mind based on the evidence. The last pope made it as clear as he could without a formal endorsement that would force his human judgement on others that he beleived in it and I suspect you would be hard pressed to find a Jesuit who did not beleive in it. But as this is not a matter of faith catholics are free to make up their own mind.
umm I do not think that faith means the same thing for all parties here. when a Catholic talks about religous faith he means the need to maintain certainty in an absolute truth. This is nothing like the Scientific ideal which is to prove, that is test, all theories or presumed facts and be williing to abandon those presumed facts and theories, if the testing reveals them to be false. Scientists have it seems to me no use for certainty.
If you think evolution happens, whether one is a catholic or not you should do so because of the evidence not because it is an absolute truth, Evolutionary theories are explicitly not matters of faith in catholism. Catholics are therefore expected to make up their own mind based on the evidence. The last pope made it as clear as he could without a formal endorsement that would force his human judgement on others that he beleived in it and I suspect you would be hard pressed to find a Jesuit who did not beleive in it. But as this is not a matter of faith catholics are free to make up their own mind.
30Jargoneer
I am always puzzled when it is stated that Catholics, or any other religious sects, believe in an absolute truth, while scientists deal in uncertainty.
It strikes me that scientists deal in truth that can be tested and measured, and therefore proven to be true, while the church deal in truth that demands people suspend their rational thought processes.
I have stated in another post that Dawkins is wrong about religion though. He has no respect for the facts regarding religion, an attitude that would, in his day job, not be tolerated. He constantly ignores history that proves religion has made a positive contribution to human civilisation. This does not mean that religion has not been the cause of many 'atrocities' but so has politics, greed, etc. If Dawkins wants to attack religious belief, he should stick to a scientific method, when he extends it to areas such as history or philosophy (in the general sense) he undermines his own arguments.
I do take exception to the very early post that states Britain is solely to blame for the problems in NI - that shows a level of ignorance that even Dawkins would balk at.
It strikes me that scientists deal in truth that can be tested and measured, and therefore proven to be true, while the church deal in truth that demands people suspend their rational thought processes.
I have stated in another post that Dawkins is wrong about religion though. He has no respect for the facts regarding religion, an attitude that would, in his day job, not be tolerated. He constantly ignores history that proves religion has made a positive contribution to human civilisation. This does not mean that religion has not been the cause of many 'atrocities' but so has politics, greed, etc. If Dawkins wants to attack religious belief, he should stick to a scientific method, when he extends it to areas such as history or philosophy (in the general sense) he undermines his own arguments.
I do take exception to the very early post that states Britain is solely to blame for the problems in NI - that shows a level of ignorance that even Dawkins would balk at.
31janey47
Jargoneer -- I could not agree more with your comments about Dawkins's methods. This is *exactly* my issue with him.
The problem is that he's playing to a crowd that is itself incredibly patronizing and supercilious when it comes to religion. He (and his audience) find no need to follow scientific method because they believe that their beliefs are self-evidently supported by the facts. Yet, as I have said above, a content-neutral examination of the discussions in his documentary would not allow an objective observer to determine who was right. But the audience with whom I saw the film hooted and applauded whenever he would get in a particularly snarky, if content-free, comment about religion or a religious person.
It's disgusting. I think that if we're going to make an argument against people who are prone to ad hominem attacks, we need desperately to rise above the level of the diatribe that we object to. This is true whether it's Dawkins and religion or Michael Moore and right wing politics.
The problem is that he's playing to a crowd that is itself incredibly patronizing and supercilious when it comes to religion. He (and his audience) find no need to follow scientific method because they believe that their beliefs are self-evidently supported by the facts. Yet, as I have said above, a content-neutral examination of the discussions in his documentary would not allow an objective observer to determine who was right. But the audience with whom I saw the film hooted and applauded whenever he would get in a particularly snarky, if content-free, comment about religion or a religious person.
It's disgusting. I think that if we're going to make an argument against people who are prone to ad hominem attacks, we need desperately to rise above the level of the diatribe that we object to. This is true whether it's Dawkins and religion or Michael Moore and right wing politics.
32SimonW11
Maybe C P Snow was right after all. While i have always been willing to accept that a large number of people from the Arts found Science mystifying. I have tended to think that scientist were saved by their humanity from being uninterested in the proper study of man. Everyone I thought knows that Aristotle had an idea in the bath but only those of a scientific bent know why the bath was relevent to the problem. Not knowing the basics of a religion that has shaped our moral and ethical behavour. Makes me wonder if such people have considered such morals and ethics at all. oh dear that sounds harsh. what I mean is ignorance of religion, like ignorance of music, literature, film, or sport. Is the mark of a nerd in its most perjorative sense, of someone who's limited interests have been so all enveloping that they have prevented others developing.
33bduguid
>Not knowing the basics of a religion that has shaped our moral and ethical behavour. Makes me wonder if such people have considered such morals and ethics at all.
Dawkins, and others (e.g. see Steve Jones in The Origins of Virtue) would argue that the majority of morality is independent of religion and predates the religions that currently preoccupy the world.
Dawkins, and others (e.g. see Steve Jones in The Origins of Virtue) would argue that the majority of morality is independent of religion and predates the religions that currently preoccupy the world.
34bduguid
>He constantly ignores history that proves religion has made a positive contribution to human civilisation.
Dawkins is repeatedly on record as appreciating many of the legacies of religion, both social and cultural.
Dawkins is repeatedly on record as appreciating many of the legacies of religion, both social and cultural.
35bduguid
>I got to wondering this morning why he doesn't take on various New Age theorists if a belief in the supernatural is such a problem.
Perhaps a reading of his books is in order? For this topic you could try A Devil's Chaplain - Dawkins has in many places made clear his dislike for the "new age" in terms as strong or stronger than he uses for religion.
For what it's worth, I haven't read the God Delusion yet, but Sam Harris's similarly polemical The End of Faith also gives Buddhism far too easy a ride (Harris also treads far more lightly on Judaism than he does on Islam), so I'd certainly agree that there's a lack of evenhandedness here.
Perhaps a reading of his books is in order? For this topic you could try A Devil's Chaplain - Dawkins has in many places made clear his dislike for the "new age" in terms as strong or stronger than he uses for religion.
For what it's worth, I haven't read the God Delusion yet, but Sam Harris's similarly polemical The End of Faith also gives Buddhism far too easy a ride (Harris also treads far more lightly on Judaism than he does on Islam), so I'd certainly agree that there's a lack of evenhandedness here.
36SimonW11
Dawkins, and others (e.g. see Steve Jones in The Origins of Virtue) would argue that the majority of morality is independent of religion...
Well yes the majority of Christians would agree see The Abolition of Man for example.Other religions? Dunno but I suspect most would agree and outside of Monotheism mutter that its not really their concern. Morality in its rough hewn form is the the result of being human. most people agree on that whether they are sociobiologist, Christian, philosopher, or any combination of those. But people who see such rough hewn justice as a sufficent guide for the race are people who have not considered morals and ethics with the care they deserve.
Well yes the majority of Christians would agree see The Abolition of Man for example.Other religions? Dunno but I suspect most would agree and outside of Monotheism mutter that its not really their concern. Morality in its rough hewn form is the the result of being human. most people agree on that whether they are sociobiologist, Christian, philosopher, or any combination of those. But people who see such rough hewn justice as a sufficent guide for the race are people who have not considered morals and ethics with the care they deserve.
37bduguid
Well, that's just plain rude.
Apropos the original comment "Makes me wonder if such people have considered such morals and ethics at all", I now note, having had a chance to look through the God Delusion, that it has a very large section on just this topic. Perhaps critics could address themselves to the arguments it makes rather than just insulting those of us who are areligious by suggesting we don't give careful consideration to ethics?
Apropos the original comment "Makes me wonder if such people have considered such morals and ethics at all", I now note, having had a chance to look through the God Delusion, that it has a very large section on just this topic. Perhaps critics could address themselves to the arguments it makes rather than just insulting those of us who are areligious by suggesting we don't give careful consideration to ethics?
38SimonW11
I had no intention to offend you. If I did then I apologise. But if the new coinage areligous means what I think it means I must stand by what I said and indeed amplify that by stating that I think this this applies equally to the apolitical.
Perhaps however you mean something different by arreligous?
I do find it strange you see, that you seem to proclaim yourself uninterested in religion yet are apparently both reading a book, The God Delusion about it and engaging in this disscusion of religion.
I don't really think it is possible for humanity as a whole to be nonreligious rather I suspect that it is wired into us by the anthropomorphism, gnostic experiences and sense of natural law, that comprise a large part of it. Religions are part of the cost we pay for being thinking social beings, for containing The origins of virtue.
still I could certainly be wrong about all that hard wiring or maybe those components could be reasembled as something that we would not recognise as a religion.
in which case yes certainly I do not see why a moral and ethical system needs a religious component . It seems to me that though that all the moral and ethical systems we have built up to now have had such components,and have in some way used previous ethical systems as a model. I dont really see how you could remove these components without gaining some understanding of them and through them of religion.
Perhaps however you mean something different by arreligous?
I do find it strange you see, that you seem to proclaim yourself uninterested in religion yet are apparently both reading a book, The God Delusion about it and engaging in this disscusion of religion.
I don't really think it is possible for humanity as a whole to be nonreligious rather I suspect that it is wired into us by the anthropomorphism, gnostic experiences and sense of natural law, that comprise a large part of it. Religions are part of the cost we pay for being thinking social beings, for containing The origins of virtue.
still I could certainly be wrong about all that hard wiring or maybe those components could be reasembled as something that we would not recognise as a religion.
in which case yes certainly I do not see why a moral and ethical system needs a religious component . It seems to me that though that all the moral and ethical systems we have built up to now have had such components,and have in some way used previous ethical systems as a model. I dont really see how you could remove these components without gaining some understanding of them and through them of religion.
39bookishbunny
Simon,
I don't know if the term 'areligious' is the same as atheist, but I have several atheist friends and at least two of them are 'obsessed' (their word) with God and religion. I'm not Buddhist, but I'm fascinated by the culture and belief system behind it.
I will not claim to have read it, but God Delusion's premise seems to be one of attacking as opposed to expressing a point of view. Many of the comments on this book by its readers seem to support that. I would probably not pick it up because of that, any more than I would pick up something called 'The Buddha Delusion'. Any book that dismisses atheism as a condemned belief I would also avoid.
I don't know if the term 'areligious' is the same as atheist, but I have several atheist friends and at least two of them are 'obsessed' (their word) with God and religion. I'm not Buddhist, but I'm fascinated by the culture and belief system behind it.
I will not claim to have read it, but God Delusion's premise seems to be one of attacking as opposed to expressing a point of view. Many of the comments on this book by its readers seem to support that. I would probably not pick it up because of that, any more than I would pick up something called 'The Buddha Delusion'. Any book that dismisses atheism as a condemned belief I would also avoid.
40Hera
I'm going to be pedantic. The book in question is a polemic. It is not a reference book or a 'guide'. It is an argument. It therefore deliberately ignores extraneous matters (e.g. the nature of Catholic saints) in order to further its main thrust. It does not set out to be a balanced text.
There is, surely, room in the world for one-sided arguments against the existence of God, given the last few millennia's pre-occupation with stifling debate on the subject? I can't wait to read it. I've read several of Dawkins' books on scientific matters and it took a lot of concentrated effort on my part (being an Arts person). This subject will be easier for me to understand, frankly.
There is, surely, room in the world for one-sided arguments against the existence of God, given the last few millennia's pre-occupation with stifling debate on the subject? I can't wait to read it. I've read several of Dawkins' books on scientific matters and it took a lot of concentrated effort on my part (being an Arts person). This subject will be easier for me to understand, frankly.
41beejay
I would love to see Dawkins and Ann Coulter in a restrained, civilized debate televised in an appropriate venue (the kind William F. Bukley used to host), not on talk radio or with an audiance hand picked to be enthusiastic about one side or the other. I am confident Dawkins would prevail (my preference) in any posit that included something like "is there a God?" or "what is the role of religion?"
As an aside, "Sam Harris" book about faith struck me in the same way "Alan Bloom's" book "The Closing of the American Mind" hit me fifteen years ago - I didn't find myself always agreeing with him, but the courage to express the essential truth of what he had discovered was, in the cultural tenor of the time, bracing.
We need more of this kind of courageous thought; We have been taking the easy, unchallenged way of screaming at each other for too long (since the 2000 fiasco in Florida, really).
As an aside, "Sam Harris" book about faith struck me in the same way "Alan Bloom's" book "The Closing of the American Mind" hit me fifteen years ago - I didn't find myself always agreeing with him, but the courage to express the essential truth of what he had discovered was, in the cultural tenor of the time, bracing.
We need more of this kind of courageous thought; We have been taking the easy, unchallenged way of screaming at each other for too long (since the 2000 fiasco in Florida, really).
42SimonW11
"There is, surely, room in the world for one-sided arguments against the existence of God" True, but neither does ability to win one sided arguements seem worthy of acclaim. Polemics should aspire to more than masturbation. Only fools and the desperate attack an enemy of whom they are ignorant.
In Bejay's case ignorance is what I must plead, I have vague heard of Ann Coulter a Standard bearer of the american religious right I believe. (From this side of the Pond there does not seem to be any sign of a relgious left over there.) the other names mean nothing to me.
I suspect I would want her to lose but as to whether she would I dont know I suspect though that the audience would have decided who was right before they showed up.
43Hera
A polemic is a statement of opinion. It is not an open debate with an opponent. Dawkins is not ignorant of the religious: the ins and outs of theological hair-splitting are not in his remit. He's a scientist telling us why he can't believe in God - why should he engage in ecumenical matters that hold interest only for each sect? He is (I think, from what I've read) delivering a broad attack on Theism from a rationalist, scientific standpoint.
Surely your perception of his opinion clouds your belief that such a polemic is 'masturbation'; would you label Martin Luther's Theses as such?
Surely your perception of his opinion clouds your belief that such a polemic is 'masturbation'; would you label Martin Luther's Theses as such?
44SimonW11
I think a polemic is rather more than a statement of opinion:^) Judging from the length of this thread he is rather successful as a polemicist he has after all stirred up controversy, got us talking.
Surely your perception of his opinion clouds your belief that such a polemic is 'masturbation';
Um I am not totally sure what you mean. My perception of his opinion shapes my view as to how sucessfully he is in communicating that opinion.
I believe he is successfull in comunicating that he has invested a great deal of emotion in his beliefs and that he has no time for other beliefs. I think that when he talks about it he fails to do more than that. certainly when talking on the radio rant often seems a better description than polemic.
would you label Martin Luther's Theses as such? Masturbation? No they are more than that. Martin Luther's Theses. converted people. I see little evidence of Richard Dawkins converting people.
generally I think polemic are rather less effective in converting the unconvinced than apologia. One generally knows ones own territory better than the enemies.
Umm time I think to wind this down I'm getting weary. I will of course reply to any questions,or tell you if i change my mind:^) but otherwise I will leave the last word to someone else.
Surely your perception of his opinion clouds your belief that such a polemic is 'masturbation';
Um I am not totally sure what you mean. My perception of his opinion shapes my view as to how sucessfully he is in communicating that opinion.
I believe he is successfull in comunicating that he has invested a great deal of emotion in his beliefs and that he has no time for other beliefs. I think that when he talks about it he fails to do more than that. certainly when talking on the radio rant often seems a better description than polemic.
would you label Martin Luther's Theses as such? Masturbation? No they are more than that. Martin Luther's Theses. converted people. I see little evidence of Richard Dawkins converting people.
generally I think polemic are rather less effective in converting the unconvinced than apologia. One generally knows ones own territory better than the enemies.
Umm time I think to wind this down I'm getting weary. I will of course reply to any questions,or tell you if i change my mind:^) but otherwise I will leave the last word to someone else.
45janey47
Hera:
None of us is denying Dawkins's absolute right to his opinion or to his own method of making his argument.
However, many of us, myself included, who *agree* with his conclusions find his methods incredibly distasteful.
I think if you read this thread through carefully you will see that I and others criticize Dawkins for using the very same methods of argumentation that he derides in the religious.
If it's bad for them to do it, why is it okay for him to do it?
Not in general. Of course he's free to publish any kind of screed he wishes and that the market will support. But in theory -- If Dawkins's position is that unthinking and unexplained adherence to a particular position is ill-advised, then it seems kind of stupid and wrong headed for him to fall into those very methods in his own book.
As I've said before -- from a content-neutral standpoint (i.e., assuming that I am ignorant of information about both evolution and religion), the arguments are indistinguishable.
None of us is denying Dawkins's absolute right to his opinion or to his own method of making his argument.
However, many of us, myself included, who *agree* with his conclusions find his methods incredibly distasteful.
I think if you read this thread through carefully you will see that I and others criticize Dawkins for using the very same methods of argumentation that he derides in the religious.
If it's bad for them to do it, why is it okay for him to do it?
Not in general. Of course he's free to publish any kind of screed he wishes and that the market will support. But in theory -- If Dawkins's position is that unthinking and unexplained adherence to a particular position is ill-advised, then it seems kind of stupid and wrong headed for him to fall into those very methods in his own book.
As I've said before -- from a content-neutral standpoint (i.e., assuming that I am ignorant of information about both evolution and religion), the arguments are indistinguishable.
46Hera
I'm aware of Dawkins' pugilistic stance, which can be seen as arrogant and intolerant of criticism.
What I'm trying to defend (badly, apparently) is his right to develop an argument without consideration for others' positions. From the (numerous) reviews I've read in newspapers I thought I had some idea of what the book attempts to do. I was brought up in a culture of political polemic and am habituated to reading very one-sided books, so this style seems normal to me.
Now I have to read it to find out why people object to it so vehemently.
What I'm trying to defend (badly, apparently) is his right to develop an argument without consideration for others' positions. From the (numerous) reviews I've read in newspapers I thought I had some idea of what the book attempts to do. I was brought up in a culture of political polemic and am habituated to reading very one-sided books, so this style seems normal to me.
Now I have to read it to find out why people object to it so vehemently.
47Jargoneer
I don't think people are vehemently objecting to Dawkin's book, they are objecting to Dawkin's method. All of Dawkin's scientific objectivity disappears when he talks about religion, rather than a (much more effective) cool rational dissection, we get a overheated rant. It could be frustration on his behalf that rationality is not winning minds in the 21st century but embracing irrationality is not the answer.
When Dawkins series 'The Root of All Evil' was shown in the UK, Jonathan Miller was presenting a series on the history of atheism. It was everybody Dawkins series wasn't - thoughtful, balanced, intelligent.
For a typical reaction to Dawkins series, see this article from The Guardian
When Dawkins series 'The Root of All Evil' was shown in the UK, Jonathan Miller was presenting a series on the history of atheism. It was everybody Dawkins series wasn't - thoughtful, balanced, intelligent.
For a typical reaction to Dawkins series, see this article from The Guardian
49janey47
Hera:
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that if a writer bases his argument on the invalidity of one-sided arguments that aren't backed up by verified statistics or facts, then he shoots himself in the foot by making that argument in a one-sided way that isn't backed up by verified statistics or facts.
It's fine with me if Dawkins wants to get all huffy. As I said above, he's really addressing his book to people who are themselves smugly self-righteous about their opinions and who just love it when he gets shots off at a religion or a religious person.
So probably, in that respect, we could view his book as a roaring success.
However, applying his own points to his own argument, he loses.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that if a writer bases his argument on the invalidity of one-sided arguments that aren't backed up by verified statistics or facts, then he shoots himself in the foot by making that argument in a one-sided way that isn't backed up by verified statistics or facts.
It's fine with me if Dawkins wants to get all huffy. As I said above, he's really addressing his book to people who are themselves smugly self-righteous about their opinions and who just love it when he gets shots off at a religion or a religious person.
So probably, in that respect, we could view his book as a roaring success.
However, applying his own points to his own argument, he loses.
51bookishbunny
LT has a mad-flagger on the loose.
52kageeh
Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation is pretty simplistic also but in a remarkable way. He rapidly and succinctly debunks Christian beliefs with very easily understandable arguments, almost to the point where one feels rather silly believing, for example, that God abhores abortion when 7 out of every 10 conceptions (and about 3 out of every 10 documented pregnancies) end in miscarriage, making God the biggest abortionist of all. I had to dwell on that for a while.
53bookishbunny
That would be like saying He condones murder of any kind because everybody dies eventually. I think most people, atheist and faithful alike, believe there is a difference between a natural death and a homicide.
54Jargoneer
It strikes that whenever a person does something bad it's that person's fault, and when something bad happens without any human intervention it's nature's fault, but when something good happens it because of God (or belief in). I wish I could get a job like that - don't worry about burning down the office, you made me a cup of coffee this morning, my boss would tell me as we watch the dying embers of our former workplace.
55bookishbunny
I am confused by your example. It seems that, contrary to your proposed assignment of blame, you are being held accountable for the coffee (good) as well as the fire (bad). It seems your hypothetical boss both forgives your failings and appreciates your efforts. In fact, it seems that even in the face of such a massive mistake, your h-boss is awfully forgiving. Hmmmm.
56kageeh
I would not go so far as to define abortion as homicide and, certainly, miscarriages, caused by no fault of the mother, are not by any stretch of the imagination. Homicide requires, for starters, a viable human being and no court has yet ruled that an embryo is a legal human being (although some courts do consider the death of a pregnancy caused by external violence to the mother to be an actionable crime). But now we're getting into legalities and Sam Harris is discussing philosophy and belief.
People who believe the Bible is to be interpreted literally (difficult and illegal though that may be - think of keeping slaves and stoning those to death who violate the sabbath) do believe that whatever happens is divined by God so Harris' example makes sense in that context.
People who believe the Bible is to be interpreted literally (difficult and illegal though that may be - think of keeping slaves and stoning those to death who violate the sabbath) do believe that whatever happens is divined by God so Harris' example makes sense in that context.
