Dawkins seems to me to be debating the ritualization of theism, i.e. religion, so he should be called, to be more accurate, anti-religious. He does not argue against the ageless arguments for theism. Instead, from what little I’ve read, he argues against the shit claimed in the ritualized form of theism…resurrection…age of earth, etc. In my eyes, he is absolutely right for doing so. We have a large majority in the world actually believing that bullshit, and a large majority of that majority making decisions based on the bullshit. I would not object if parents told of theism to their kids in the same manner as as they do Santa Clause. But we don’t teach of Santa Clause in schools, we don’t harass people for not believing in Santa, and we don’t have people strapping tnt to their waist and blowing themselves up in the midst of a crowded street of infidels all the while yelling Santa is great! Santa is great! Reason people…! Reason! It stands mutually exclusive with religion.
Those atheists who really give the time of day to “debate” theism are, I think, better thought of as anti-religious, and with good reason to being so. One is both an atheist and anti-religious if one debates the theistic arguments, but when somebody argues strictly against scriptures one is only anti-religious.
I’m curious. What are these elite arguments that the folks here can pull on the self-righteous atheists to stun or shut them up? Is it the argument from orgonite? Is it solipsistic? Does it involve, ironically, using Hume’s arguments against induction? Dogshit. I have not heard any convincing arguments for theism. Perhaps you folks here have been selfish and withheld them from us arrogant atheists. Please enlighten us. For the love of blissful eternity please do so.
Simple, it is a bridge. You only need the simplified version of acid/base chemistry to explain a lot of reactions that one would encounter in a basic chemistry course and it allows for an understanding of pH, pKa, balanced reactions, and a variety of other concepts that, ironically, are very important to understand the real way to calculate acid/base chemistry.
So the progression goes:
[simplified version]–>[important concepts based on simplified version]–>[real version using the concepts previously learned].
There needs to be a starting point somewhere, since people don’t have total knowledge and many concepts depend on each other. There is no good starting point to reality, since it is all interconnected so instead a starting point has to be made.
Erlir,
I think you are conflating dogma and ritual. They are very different things.
I think the reaction of most folks when they realize it’s blatantly obvious God doesn’t exist and so many people can’t see it is…how should I put this…human. It’s like realizing the correct answer to a math problem, with somebody sticking to their guns about an obviously incorrect answer.
In addition, don’t make the mistake of thinking atheism is synonymous with compassion. It’s not. I believe it also to be a mistake to think that calm, rational discourse would do any more good than screaming at the top of one’s lungs…
I think Sam Harris has it right…atheists should just fly under the radar. Stop calling ourselves atheists. Just attack irrationality with reason and logic whenever we have a chance, but don’t play the same shout from the rooftops game as religious folks.
I’ve heard statistics that people find atheists less trustworthy than just about any other of the many picked-upon groups. And that applies to all you ‘nice’ atheists, as well. Sorry.
So it’s not surprising that Dawkins is targeted by his detractors – I’ve even heard the ridiculous (not to mention ironic) term “atheistic jihad” as though he’s going to strap a bomb to his waist and blow up a supermarket in the name of atheism. That’s because his message of reason is a significant threat to the legions whose livelihoods rely on the lack of it. Anyway, Dawkins hasn’t gone into battle with Santa Claus, as everyone readily maintains that as a fairy tale so they don’t despair at it being untrue. We carry it on in our culture knowing full well that Santa doesn’t exist because the fable represents something that has a mythical value to a particular holiday. With its pagan roots and all. And its, er, coincidental occurrence on the very same day Jesus was born.
Instead, Dawkins is battling something that’s at the level of Santa Claus in terms of its authenticated veracity, yet is taken as reality by adults. That makes him a champion of reason in a fundamentally irrational world. No wonder the veins in his forehead occasionally pop out.
As far as meeting believers at some point in the middle so that they’ll not feel a need to go on the defensive, I wouldn’t consider that to be Dawkins’ role. He’s a non-believer, they’re believers. How does one realistically go halvesies on that? He has continually made himself open to debate with theists, so it’s not like he’s unwilling to enter into the fray and subject himself to all their questions and concerns. He should be expected to make the best arguments that support his case, not to undermine it by being just a little less adamant due to his opponents’ religious or emotional sensitivities. After all, isn’t that part of the problem here, isn’t that exactly how theists have traditionally attempted to censor the debate? I’ve watched a number of Dawkins’ broadcasts and have never seen him be unkind or vicious, just direct and uncompromising in making his points. As well, he’s not saying that people should give up their sense of wonder about life and the universe, he’s just suggesting that this wonder be focused on that which is revealed through science and reason, or the amazing beauty of the constantly-evolving natural world. To see ourselves more realistically as a part of it, and to have that insight be the source of our contentment and purpose.
As Sam Harris says, people can, through reason, come to see the nonsense of their religious beliefs, but the tough questions have to be asked. The problem is that organized religion has had millenia to develop its infrastructure and powerful ability to control the message. Dawkins’ mission is to supplant the foundations of that message with something else, why shouldn’t he be both persistent and consistent in doing so?
Dogma and ritual may be different things, but the issue is dogma>practice based on nothing but conjecture. We may ritualize almost any activity (certain beers in certain glasses? ) but most ritualized behaviors are based on some form of pragmatic rationale -ie- practice follows reason. That is far different than a practice based on nothing but conjecture, which is the province of theism.
Tent,
It isn’t based on conjecture, though. It is based on tradition. With the notable exception of Wicca, these rituals aren’t being created in the modern time but are instead inherited from a different time entirely.
Ing,
Precisely because of the religious infrastructure. While David and Goliath is a pleasant story, in real life the giant almost invariably wins. That’s why compromise with the giant makes more sense in this case than picking a fight with it.
Then again, I suppose it is all about one’s goals. I just want crap like ID to be kept out of schools.
Well, if all he had was a lack of belief, none of us would have ever heard of him. He has a stance, that he thinks is the correct stance, and he pushes it as the correct stance. That gives him the same obligations as anybody else doing that kind of thing. In other words, whether or not he 'has to' justify anything is besides the point- he's clearly making the attempt.
The fact that conjecture is inherited from a different time doesn’t change the fact that theistic ritual is less conjecture… I don’t see how the age of a ritual lends any credibility when it is based on irrationality from the get go.
Whether or not it adds any credibility, it does explain its persistence. That is part of what I was talking about with the notion of values beyond mere truth.
There is nothing illogical about pushing back when one is being pushed. The stance of the atheist isn’t to create anything more than space in which to be. It is simply a reaction to the insistence of the religious that all must accept “God” or be damned to hell. If calling out those religious who denigrate the un-believers as less-than is an agenda or stance, then Dawkins deserves to be lionized.
Fine. Santa Claus has a persistent purpose. But just how long must one remain in childhood illusion? At what point does pragmatic truth become equal and more important than childhood fantasy?
That all depends on the thing being valued, doesn’t it?
Santa Claus is a childhood illusion that is useful in childhood. Once childhood has passed, it should be (rightly) discarded. The problem is that God isn’t Santa Claus. Several reasons why religion is useful on a social as well as personal level have already been listed on this thread and others.
And I’d suggest that what we need to be concerned about is how its utility (at least in its more orthodox forms) is waning in a modern world and that this is the basis of the extremist behavior of those who are threatened by the challenges that science and reason pose to their beliefs.
I recall that both Harris and Dennett (can’t recall if Dawkins specifically says so, too, but probably) have made the point that things like keeping ID out of the schools are exactly why we need to attack its basis with reason. It would be nice if we could have just a little bit of benign irrationality floating around in the world that nobody ever needs to worry about…but religion is of course non-existent without the practices of the humans who believe in and perpetuate it. And humans don’t work that way, they gravitate toward control of wealth and power, despite the religious messages that say these things will not likely get one to heaven. And now, we even have Christian-based ministries of prosperity…God wants you to go for the gold!
I agree with you completely. “God of the Gaps” arguments have been used to justify God’s existence for so long that for many people the two ideas have become inseparable, so when human knowledge contradicts “god knowledge” for lack of a better term, they feel that the notion of God itself is under attack. This is where I favor synthesis over conflict, since there are no good reasons as to why science and religion can’t be made compatible. This is where I think Dawkins and Harris have it wrong. There are people who feel that their religion is under attack by the progress of human knowledge so they try and oppose the progress of human knowledge. What people like Dawkins and Harris then proceed to do, is to actually attack their religion! Now the threat has transformed from an unfortunate misunderstanding to an actual, real assault on their treasured beliefs. Given the firebrand quality of their work, it won’t convince the extremes who are advocating things like ID to acquiesce but rather to dig their heels in and fight all the harder while at the same time galvanizing their target audience to further escalate the conflict. The middle is left out entirely or seen as “enablers” for the opposition by both sides, again polarizing the issue. It serves to create a condition where a fight is the only possible outcome. I view that as not only counter-productive but also as dangerous since it is not a fight the atheists are likely to win. And then what are we left with?
That’s because you’re not religious in that way. I think there are more religious people than scientists who would heartily disagree with your view of the matter, lol.
I don’t think that’s a fair assessment of their work. They’re attacking the irrational basis of religion. That theistic religions are based on a belief that the supernatural is real isn’t Dawkins’ or Harris’ fault.
I have never viewed their work as ‘firebrand’. Direct, uncompromising, willing to delve into the core of religious irrationality, yes. But not once have I watched them at work and found a stylistic likenesss to someone of Jerry Fallwell’s ilk. While I understand your point about diplomacy, I think that works better when it comes to economics or politics, not strictly for religious belief. I also think that the very folks you want to reach through a less ‘in-your-face’ approach aren’t reachable that way. Most theistic intellectuals aren’t the problem, they often appear to have quite a bit of openness to doubt. For the rest, it’s unrealistic to think that their irrationality can be dealt with by anything other than straightforward challenges based upon reason, even if it makes some feel very uncomfortable.
I also think you may be surprised at how these challenges will allow more freedom or tolerance of atheistic beliefs over the long run. This is a signficant taboo in parts of America, and I think there’s a need for courageous and uncompromising challenges to it. At least it’s an encouraging shift away from the dumbing down that has been the bane of the US since Reagan stepped in with the enthusiastic backing of the religious right.
I don’t like the polarization, either, but the fact is that science has, from the start, slowly undermined the foundations of religious explanations for how our world works. As technology has made greater leaps and bounds, the intensity of the debate has naturally increased. If those who are religious could separate their morality from their need for irrational belief, then the debate would be defused. But theism doesn’t seem to work that way.
I agree that is the present situation, but it hasn’t always been that way, Christianity and science used to get along great! What started out as an endevour to understand God through his works started to make the concept of God seem obsolete! At that, certain vocal groups dug their heels in rather than changing their dogma to fit with modern understandings. I mean, non-literal readings of the Bible are as old as Christianity itself, so it isn’t like I am asking for Christians everywhere to throw away their faith and become Gnostics or anything. It is perfectly in line with what is already there. Marveling at God’ Creation through science is a lot more interesting than mistaking a metaphor for reality. Then again, I find science qua science interesting so for me it doesn’t seem strange to try and suggest that people take something that is already interesting and work it into their understanding of the world. I’m also not a Christian, so while I don’t see any incompatibility here, I could be missing something.
But that’s just it, they are picking a fight with a majority belief that has a lot of power. You might not think they are firebrands, but both are given to hyperbolize the negative role of religion in history. Whether or not they are justified in their attack on what the perceive as an irrational belief, it is their methodology that I have a problem with since I view it as counter-productive.
Religious systems in the capacity we are discussing them are based around groups of people working together in a common belief. It is a political enterprise, IMHO. That’s why I think that you can reach a lot of people without the “in-your-face” attitude. Sure, there will always be some diehards in the wings, that is inescapable. The thing we want to avoid, however, is empowering the diehards which is what I see Dawkins and Harris doing in their methodology.
I do think that it is good that people are allowed to be atheist, but I guess I don’t see it in a civil-rights sort of way. I mean, sure it was awkward when a woman in my department looked at my girlfriend like she was from Space when my girlfriend said she was a Buddhist, but it was nothing more than that. As America becomes more pluralized, I largely see it as a self-correcting problem.
Again, science and Christianity got along famously once-upon-a-time and furthermore, Christianity need not be irrational. Look at the Scholastics and such. It isn’t that the whole tradition is irrational, but rather that an anti-rational, anti-modern section has come to dominate the American political landscape. Attacking the tradition as a whole encourages the moderates to fall back on to the diehards for support, since it is either that or a complete renunciation of their “irrational” system. Framing the debate this way strengthens precisely the segment of society we don’t want to strengthen!
Richard Dawkins, Atheist Fundamentalist and champion of censorship.
On the other hand Corliss Lamont, a secular humanist, seems to have been a more opened minded guy. I read his book “Philosophy of Humanism”, although I’m not a secular humanist. He did not strike me as some sort of atheist fanatic like Richard Dawkins is.
Ummmm, hyperbolize? Really? They didn’t “make the news, they just report it.” I don’t see religion as any more or any less negative as many of the secular social rituals and traditions. But pointing out the historical irrational and often destructive nature of religion doesn’t create that long “negative” history. Religion did that quite well without any help. God is love and peace? Some of us have noticed a slight discrepancy.
As for the compatability of science and religion, they might find ways of staying out of each other’s hair, but they are incompatable at their core. Religion attempts to make the supernatural reality while science dismisses the notion of the supernatural. That isn’t likely to be resolved in compromise.
You mention counter-productive methodology. Some of us would see the opposite. Challenging irrational beliefs may be uncomfortable, but when those beliefs bring human misery and death to millions, what is the compromise? “Oh please Mr. suicide bomber, don’t hurt me. Let’s talk about this.” OK. That was cheap and easy. A better example is the Catholic church refusing the necessity of condom protection against AIDS. Please explain what social benefit is derived from such a denial of flat-proven science? Based on nothing more than “traditonal” irrationality, the church turns it’s back on hundreds of thousands of it’s followers who will be condemned to a miserable death from AIDS in order to maintain that irrationality of “faith”. There is no methodology but confrontation when religion closes it’s eyes and refuses to see.
Christianity need not be irrational? Islam need not be irrational? You speak of anti-rational and anti-modern, but that only comes from a core of irrational beliefs. The suicide bomber may indeed be anti-rational, but how did this otherwise intelligent person arrive at that state?
Does the challenge presented by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and others create the extremist in religion? No. They merely put a bright, hot, glaring spotlight on the irrationality of the beliefs of those extremists.
The polarity is there. It has been for a long time and it will continue until people wake up and realize that religion is just too “expensive” as a ‘methodology’ for dealing with all of our social ills. Religion is a luxury we can ill afford much longer. This isn’t to say that secularism is any great answer or than rationality is perfect, but we are evolving past the need for irrational explanations of the unknown.
) but most ritualized behaviors are based on some form of pragmatic rationale -ie- practice follows reason. That is far different than a practice based on nothing but conjecture, which is the province of theism.