BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Richard Dawkins

  
  

Page: 12345(6)789

 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
16:31 / 10.01.07
You refer to something living, vibrant and open but there is no evidence of this in the actual behaviour of the religious within the spectacle

By 'spectacle' do you refer to the mass media?

If so, then neither is there any evidence within this spectacle that every week tens of thousands of teenagers and young adults go out and get off their heads on drugs and have a really great time, get up on Monday and go back to school / work without dying horribly, becoming embroiled in prostitution, thieving or being gang raped.

The spectacle is funny like that, and can hardly be relied upon to provide balanced and impartial views.

"Congregation sing for 4 hours, donate thousands to charity, help the homeless'.

Not really going to sell newspapers as well as 'Mad mullah cuts head off innocent'.
 
 
illmatic
17:16 / 10.01.07
Actually, that's a very good point - precious little media commentary seems to focus on the positive utility of relgious practice for the user, be it faith, prayer or meditation - a willingness to ask why: what positive things is it do for the user, regardless of it's basis in truth. It's exactly this that I was finding very frustrating with this thread earlier on.
 
 
multitude.tv
18:04 / 10.01.07
positive utility of relgious practice for the user, be it faith, prayer or meditation - a willingness to ask why: what positive things is it do for the user, regardless of it's basis in truth.

The ability to ask “why”? That’s not specifically religious.

Historically, especially in the West, religion has been used as the principle justification for limiting the question of “why” by providing answers. The answers by the way are given within the rationality of Religion; the trick of faith is for the adherent narrating their experience within the language, tradition, habit, rules, doctrines, theology, and/or structure, of whatever particular (or combination in various flavors) Religion's rationality.

The actualization of the ability to ask why, was precisely Socrates’ problem in the Athenian Court, Bruno & Galileo’s problem with the Church, etc. The actualization of the asking of why, without arriving at the pre-determined answer is the problem that Evangelical Christians have with Darwinian Evolution.

Throughout the history of the West Religion (institutions, individuals, communities) have repeatedly suppressed philosophers, scientists, and artists. The “positive utility” of “faith” or “religion” (meditation need not be based in “religion”) is precisely its insistence on consolation, justification, and certainty in its own rationality, rather than critical inquiry or investigation.

precious little media commentary wha? Christian Broadcasters:

Christian Broadcasting Network
Crossroads Television System
Daystar Television Network
Hour of Power
JC TV Youth Programing
JC TV Pakistan
KTF Productions
Messiah TV Netherlands
Nejat TV Farsi language (“The Nejat (“Salvation”) Project is an historic outreach to win souls in the Muslim world.”)
Sky Angel
Trinity Broadcasting Network
United Christian Broadcasters Europe

And before we go on some tirade about “spectacle” and Mass Media, I suggest that before one assumes what is meant by the spectacle, or what one’s interlocutors may mean by the term (if you are not clear); the polite course of action might be to quickly look up the notion on Wikipedia & this board (A, B)at least. A much more belligerent response (belligerent in its sheer laziness) would be to ask the person who used the term (in this case SDV), what they meant by the term, and this is important: wait for a reply, it might be interesting. However, the most impolite trajectory to take this discussion would be in my view, to assume you know what SDV meant by the term and then produce a boring, repeated, worn-out, tirade about “Media Coverage”, “Biass”, etc.
 
 
gayscience
18:16 / 10.01.07
And before we go on some tirade about “spectacle” and Mass Media, I suggest that before one assumes what is meant by the spectacle, or what one’s interlocutors may mean by the term (if you are not clear); the polite course of action might be to quickly look up the notion on Wikipedia & this board (A, B)at least. A much more belligerent response (belligerent in its sheer laziness) would be to ask the person who used the term (in this case SDV), what they meant by the term, and this is important: wait for a reply, it might be interesting. However, the most impolite trajectory to take this discussion would be in my view, to assume you know what SDV meant by the term and then produce a boring, repeated, worn-out, tirade about “Media Coverage”, “Biass”, etc.

Isn't it more impolite to assume that the Wikipedia definition of a term is what sdv meant? Since there are a multitude of interpretations of things isn't it best to ask the poster what he or she understands by the term?

I see no reason why people can't post their thoughts when they read something rather than waiting for a response, even if what they have to say turns out to be different from what the original poster meant it still adds to the discussion.

I find your hostility inexplicable.
 
 
multitude.tv
19:01 / 10.01.07
Isn't it more impolite to assume that the Wikipedia definition of a term is what sdv meant?

If one checked out the Wikipedia article, or either of the two previous forums on this site, one would be clued into the problematic of the term "spectacle" and the discourse it is a part of, perhaps leading one to ask a more informed question; a cursory looking at what folks have discussed by the term “spectacle” shows rather that the term is problematic, has a history, and multiple uses; not simply “Mass Media”. The Spectacle, for example, can refer to religion itself: Especially if the spectacle is understood in terms a mediation to the world. Religion serves as a long-standing media; that is an in-between of experience and thought, filtering through the aforementioned (dogmatic, traditional, mythological, theological, etc) rationality of religion. It is a media that is also the message (“way of life”/”ethic” as well as a moral/narrative/tradition).

That Christian broadcasters overwhelmingly see the mass media as a means of evangelical action, that it is part of the ethic of the religious adherent as well as affirmation of the ethic is indicative of the circular reasoning of “the Religious”. “I practice the faith because I believe in the faith, I believe in the faith because I practice the faith.” Those who practice but don’t believe, or those who believe but don’t practice are seen by the rationality of a particular faith to be “lapsing”, “hypocritical”, “heretical”, “blasphemous”, etc. In some faiths it is cause for “confession” or “testimony”, a symptom that needs to be disciplined with penance in order for forgiveness in the context of the internal rationality of the faith.

Yup, rather than jump into a hypothetical argument; but again, an informed questioning is best, IMHO.

it still adds to the discussion. you say adds, I say detracts; what happened to Dawkins?

I find your hostility inexplicable. What hostility? I was just making suggestions on how one may make a more informed post. Feel free to ignore it.

What is the place of religious belief in public policy, and what should it be?

What role should religious belief play in scientific inquiry, if any? (i.e, should we not experiment because the church says so?)

What role should science play in religious discourse? (i.e, should scientist be allowed to ask for evidence?)

What if the Religion says one thing and Science says another? Again on a particular topic, say the age of the Earth? What constitutes the "fact" of the matter, Science or Religion?

Are religion and science of same epistemological weight?

Why bother with religion at all? What's it good for anyway?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
19:32 / 10.01.07
as evidence witness the appalling religious homophobia yesterday ?

You refer to something living, vibrant and open but there is no evidence of this in the actual behaviour of the religious within the spectacle

Since I very much doubt that sdv was an eye-witness at the scene of the religious homophobia yesterday, and he segues from this as evidence for his point into the absence of evidence for open, living vibrancy of religion in 'the spectacle', i hardly think it was impolite to guess that he was referencing the media and mediated views of religion.

Also, since sdv has made it clear that his engagement with 'the religious' and religion is not exactly from within, I do not consider it impolite to also guess that his main connection with religion and the religious is via the media.

He is, of course, welcome to clarify or refute this.

You reference a definition of 'the spectacle' which could be religion itself..."You refer to something living, vibrant and open but there is no evidence of this in the actual behaviour of the religious within religion". Hmmm. I doubt this was his intended meaning, since he is referring to my example of just the opposite. My example is irrelevant however, compared to what occurs in the spectacle...I don't think it was such a reach, and certainly not impolite, to make the assumption and continue.

The same reliance on media and the internet for an understanding of religion and the religious, no doubt, can be said of Richard Dawkins, whose views on religion and the religious are quite peculiar, as has been noted by many commentators on his polemic in The God Delusion, which contains innumerable innacuracies and errata which a scholar of religion, rather than biology, would simply never let pass.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
19:34 / 10.01.07
Oh, one other thing: I believe Eggs comment regarding a willingness to ask why was referring to the media, not religion.

In the UK, there is no religious broadcasting except on satellite channels, which are subscription only. Apart from 'Songs of Praise', a kind of Top of the Pops for God botherers once a week on Sundays.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:54 / 10.01.07
The actualization of the ability to ask why, was precisely Socrates’ problem in the Athenian Court

If it helps, I find this far more irritating in its uncritical assertion of half-understood nostrums than the idea that the spectacle means the mass media.

Back to Dawkins, anyone?
 
 
multitude.tv
20:09 / 10.01.07
Back to Dawkins, anyone?

Richard Dawkins, whose views on religion and the religious are quite peculiar, as has been noted by many commentators on his polemic in The God Delusion, which contains innumerable innacuracies and errata which a scholar of religion, rather than biology, would simply never let pass.

That sounds like a good place to start. Anyone care to post any examples (of errata, etc.)? Let's have a swing at'em ourselves. (oh and if you have any links to these commentaries, please share; I've looked a bit, though most of the responses I've seen just say "he's mean".)... Thanks
 
 
EvskiG
20:15 / 10.01.07
I'd be curious to see some of these supposed errors in Dawkins' work myself.

Could serve as a useful basis for discussion in a topic that's supposed to be about him.
 
 
gayscience
20:46 / 10.01.07
You can watch a reading of excerpts from The God Delusion here on his site.

There are some articles by him there as well if you dig deep.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
20:56 / 10.01.07
I didn't realize that the use of the term 'spectacle' would be so problematic. So let's be clear that in the intellectual line of descent that I inhabit, the concept of the 'spectacle' includes the mass communications mediums, including of course this one, but is a way of understanding so much more. But note that it would also incorporate precisely what multitude proposed. It's an interesting extension but it does work... Curious given the comments that you hadn't noticed how full the spectacle (in the broadest possible sense) is full of positive comments and articles about religious experiences, and more interestingly positive representations of the cultural experience of religion. The four or five Guardian pieces on religion this week can be understood in these terms, as can the Daily Mail coverage of the religious attacks on gay rights.

...Congregation sing for 4 hours, donate thousands to charity, help the homeless... (a statement, derived from the media, which is suspiciously similar to the west giving development aid to afica...?)

I can understand why you want to draw a distinction between the reactionary aspects of religious behaviour that have been well demonstrated recently, and your personal experiences of the religious as open, vibrant etc... But to presume that it is possible to live in western societies without acquiring a direct understanding of religion is simply naive. Very few atheists, even those brought up by anti-humanist atheist parents cannot avoid religion instruction. Dawkins poignent descriptions of his own introductions to high CE are really quite touching, if all religions functioned as he describes it really wouldn't be such a problem... Could you perhaps explain what it is that Dawkins says that is perculiar and factually incorrect? and also clarify how you (as religious people) would critique religions and religious practices -- an internal critique would be interesting ?

Philosophically speaking 'Truth' certainly exists though it is a very difficult concept, in the scientific and engineering sense 'Truth' is probabilistic and always potentially falsifible. The scientific revolution of the 17th C on was a Non-Probalistic Truth, 'Truth' as religion proposes it is impossible because the concept of 'god' cannot even be declared to be even 'probably true'... The reason why I'm mentioning the above is because I've recently realised that given the problem with the founding concept of 'god' I'd place myself as on the opposite pole of the religous spectrum from Jung - 'i know there is no god as Jung knows there is one' because the current justificatons for its existance can never be accepted.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
21:08 / 10.01.07
and actually, why are you imagining that the discussion has ever deviated from 'Dawkins' -- it should not be hard to see that an anti-humanist critique of Dawkins work, is being rehearsed here. Just as the religious refusal is precisely being displayed in its heartfelt irrationality...

I will never understand this desire to maintain a line of thought, or discussion along the lines of the thread summary... It is the deviations which are most worthwhile.

(and no 'irrationality' is not to be considered as terrible word - it's a nice and positive word actually.)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:15 / 10.01.07
The four or five Guardian pieces on religion this week can be understood in these terms,

One article over the weekend, actually - the rest were blog posts on Commentisfree, and in one case, it seems, a letter. All part of t3h spectacle, of course, but of different value and weight.
 
 
gayscience
21:19 / 10.01.07
I will never understand this desire to maintain a line of thought, or discussion along the lines of the thread summary... It is the deviations which are most worthwhile.

I agree.
 
 
multitude.tv
21:22 / 10.01.07
The Guardian Article. Did it actually point out contentious "factual errors on Religion" concerning Dawkins' "God Delusion"? I read it and didn't find any of its points particularly specific, if its the same article that's being discussed.
 
 
illmatic
21:23 / 10.01.07
Multitude: Just quickly before I read the rest of the thread - I didn't mean that the question "why" was exclusive to religions, far from it! I meant, asking "why" people engage in religious practices, in a postive sense - what are they getting from it? My bad. Poor grammar on my part.
 
 
multitude.tv
21:25 / 10.01.07
Just quickly before I read the rest of the thread - I didn't mean that the question "why" was exclusive to religions, far from it! I meant, asking "why" people engage in religious practices, in a postive sense - what are they getting from it? My bad. Poor grammar on my part.

That makes sense. It's a good question, "what are they getting from it"? (and perhaps, what are they "putting into it"?)
 
 
sdv (non-human)
08:33 / 11.01.07
The original reviews of the Dawkins were often quite critical - but generally did not make any attempt to refute the main arguments. [[ See for example the review in New Scientist of the 6th October which opens with a declaration of a state of war between science and religion and with science being roundly condemned for "...social Darwinism, the brash, brutal doctrine of the survival of the fittest that Herbert Spencer taught so successfully in the US and which deeply influenced the Nazis. In recent times, the sociobiological rhetoric of "selfishness" and "ruthlessness" in natural selection has served to reinforce this impression of meaningless brutality, leaving religion as the only tolerable option....." Midgely also makes the astonishing claim that in the Middle East, the scientific or Darwinian attitude means western materialism... (The factual inaccuracles, myths and political errors she maintains as truths in the above are irrelevant.) ]]

The recent guardian article on ID is relevant because it repeats the myth that religiously inspired science, based upon a 'logical inference' which is sufficient to endorse the claim that it is science. (first evolution, then Galileo's mathematization of the universe, then the infinite universe itself...) It is this absurd claim that really causes the problem between science and religion and is the motivation for the recent anti-religious books by Dawkins and Harris. In Dawkins case it's clear that he recognizes that what's at stake here is not just Truth and rationalism, but the political and the infinite universe. (I may not like Dawkins liberalism but recent theological regimes are the context against which it should be considered and not my own leftist positions.)

What are they getting from it ? If I roll up religion and spiritual into a single concept 'mysticism' then: It seems to have two general meanings (thanks to Eric S for the following). On the one hand, it tends to be merely perjorative, defining beliefs that are irrational and superstitious, referring back to something transcendent, which is conveniently outside the tribunal of both reason and the material. On the other hand, however, mysticism may also be said to refer non-ordinary experiences that may be real, that are capable of being articulated in radically different fashions, usually based on the religious and intellectual background of the individuals having the experience. Perhaps the most common interpretations of mysticism however is that it tends to be an experience of non-duality in which the subject is swallowed up be a greater whole or radically displaced; which is the meaning of the term Vedanta (non-dual) and the traditions that speaks positively of union (Atman - that art thou) or negatively for Buddhist in the sense of Nirvana; literally, a blowing-out, extinction or what the Sufi mystics called the desire of the moth for the flame.

The key to understanding the above is the relation to the transcendent. Perhaps I should clarify what is at stake here by suggesting the clear relationship between the spectacle (aka capital) and the transcendent ? Both in terms of religion but also the transcendental foundation of power. The relations bewteen the two are hopefully obvious.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
10:37 / 11.01.07
*quick aside : Vedanta means, roughly, 'End of Knowledge'. Veda = Knnowledge, Anta=Conclusion. Hence, the end of the Vedas, the culmination of the Vedas.

'Advaita' means, roughly, 'There is not two' - hence Advaita Vedanta, or more commonly just Advaita, the mystical Hindu philosophy which contains the famous 'Tat Tvam Asi' - Thou art that.

Sorry I have no time between now and next week to properly run with the Dawkins question...it deserves a sensible investment of time and energy which are two rather precious commodoties this early in January which I rather lack!
 
 
illmatic
06:59 / 12.01.07
The relations bewteen the two are hopefully obvious.

To you, maybe. To others ... not so much.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
13:28 / 12.01.07
eggs,

i didn't really expect people to accept the logic, which I do of course. That the transcendental foundation of power is precisely why dieties such as 'god' exist, I'd go futher and say have to exist. just that i thought it might be appropriate to say it... at this point in part to see if there are any relgious spinozists out there...

And because if we were to discuss how to critique Dawkins (which bizarrely has not been asked) I would say that the starting point might be either the transcendental status, he wants to give to science or the absurd realism that marks his view.
 
 
HCE
01:00 / 16.01.07
What transcendental status is that, exactly?
 
 
illmatic
15:25 / 16.01.07
And what is the connection to the Spectacle?

While we're at it, I think you're offbase connecting the "transcendent" or mysticism to my question what do they get out of it? Actively seeking out transcendent or mystical experiences is surely an activity of a minority in any religion. I was thinking of the more "everyday" believer, and trying to consider what postives their religious practice brings them. This is because IMO you're not going to "replace" religion, no matter how illogical it is, unless you offer a ways of thinking and understanding that offer similar satisfactions. Nature abhors a vacumn, and we won't easily create one in our beliefs and thinking.

This is where I think Dawkins approach is flawed, because he rests so heavily on attacking, but doesn't offer any alternative values. Beyond us being "lumbering, stupid robots" or whatever the quote is. I'd have a lot more time for him if was asserting - say - humanist values rather than simply berating people for being irrational and stupid.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
18:46 / 17.01.07
Transcendence: the state of being beyond the reach or apprehension of experience. Any scientific-realist, including Dawkins, has to argue that there is nothing in the infinite universe that is beyond the reach of science or some descendent of science. What this requires is an acceptance of the transcendental, which in this case is the logical apparatus of concepts and principles, 'common' to all rational minds, which organizes experience and which is prior to it. I think this hint is enough to show why Dawkins is... (oh and Dawkin's a liberal humanist can't you people read ? don't you understand why he couldn't take the logic of the selfish gene to it's logical conclusion, like Kant and god...)

eggs, on the whole I agree with Toni Negri that the transcendental in all its forms is a necessity for modern capitalism, which of course, for us is both postmodern and is best described in the mass-consumptive west through the term 'spectacle'. His argument hinges on the decision that in the history of thought, materialism has always been defined by it's adversery - which is transcendence and transcendentalism. It is laughable to believe that 'religion' because it is 'religion', is an exception to this struggle.

Most of Dawkin's work has been done simply to avoid the image of selfish genes as producing elegent fleshy robots, whole concepts 'memes' have been invented to avoid the problem. That his overall approach is typically western liberal and humanist is I suggest why those who are religious actually have so many problems with liberalism...

roughly i guess that's enough
 
 
Char Aina
19:00 / 17.01.07
those who are religious actually have so many problems with liberalism

i'm sorry, but that seems to be pretty sweeping.
those who are religious?
what of the religious and liberal?

i don't know how common the crossover is, but my experience suggest that there is at least some.

this article may be of interest, as might this blog.

i found them both with google.
hits one and two searching for 'religious liberals'.
 
 
illmatic
19:41 / 17.01.07
Actually sdv, can't you read?Nurnur. I didn't say that Dawkins was not a liberal humanist. I said he wasn't asserting actively programme of positive humanist values that might address some of the same areas as religion. Please pay attention.
 
 
HCE
06:37 / 18.01.07
"Any scientific-realist, including Dawkins, has to argue that there is nothing in the infinite universe that is beyond the reach of science or some descendent of science."

Wrong. A number of things (such as the question of what sorts of soft tissues were sported by animals who have left only fossil traces) are unanswerable, period. Any questions at all about creatures that left not even a fossil record: unanswerable, period. Even a scientific-fabulist will tell you that the scientific method is very well suited to answering some questions (what kind of therapy is effective in minimizing the effects of spinal cord injury?) and very poorly suited to answering others (how cool is a model of a LOTR battle made out of gummi bears?).

Transcendence is metaphysics, not science, not a descendant of science, not even a fifth cousin twice removed of science.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
06:59 / 18.01.07
toksik,

You are right of course within all churches there have been worker-priests, liberation theology and so on. Similarly there are people who are religious who have radical relations to our societies. But this should not be confused with either the institutions themselves or more critically the inability of churches and the believers to accept quite simple social changes. Does this reflect the greater society ? Yes of course, but I'm not sure that I'm supposed to accept that as a good way to understand religion given the way you've defined it...
 
 
sdv (non-human)
08:58 / 18.01.07
gourami,

Transcendence is metaphysics, not science, not a descendant of science, not even a fifth cousin twice removed of science

Don't go around being so horrible to 'metaphysics' ... though it would be nice if your statement above was correct. At one time someone on this list wanted to read latour... why don't you join them and perhaps one or two of the many histories of science which should correct this misunderstanding of science and even perhaps the T word.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
09:16 / 18.01.07
eggs,

sorry you are right, it probably did appear that I misread you, but from here the point is that there is no difference between them. I would assume that what Dawkins is attempting is to assert, in his writings on science and his anti-faith writings are finally positive humanist values that might address some of the same areas as religion. And that these values are being refused the status of 'humanist values' by those who want to maintain that 'humanism' is threatened by Dawkins scientifically based concept of Truth, which it always has been at least from Galileo onwards.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:56 / 18.01.07
Can I second Toni Negri as a recommendation? A lot of people just know "Mickey", but let's not forget that she also choreographed David Bowie's classic Diamond Dogs tour.
 
 
HCE
06:09 / 19.01.07
You said: "Transcendence: the state of being beyond the reach or apprehension of experience."

This is a simple explanation of how the scientific method works:

1. Observe.
2. Form a falsifiable hypothesis.
3. Test the hypothesis. If you are able to falsify it, revise it and test again.
4. If you are not able to falsify it, and others repeat your test and they are not able to falsify it, your hypothesis eventually becomes a theory.

What you have defined as transcendence is irrelevant to science, your explanations are wrong, and your posts about what science is and does are neither useful nor even wholly coherent.
 
 
Char Aina
10:50 / 19.01.07
But this should not be confused with either the institutions themselves or more critically the inability of churches and the believers to accept quite simple social changes.

SDV, the point is how sweeping i think you're being.

i'm confusing nothing, i am pointing out that you are saying those who believe without qualifying that. clearly those who believe is a larger group than the group with the dislike of liberalism. you do your argument a disservice when you fail to recognise that.

when you say the inability of churches and the believers to accept quite simple social changes, you are doing a smiliar thing. some believers, perhaps? some churches, maybe? the point is that your personal prejudice against religion and religious people is on display. if you do not have such a prejudice, please consider amending how you make your point to reflect that.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
11:14 / 19.01.07
Just a quick comment on gourami's definition of science. You're basically restating Karl Popper's version of what science should be - not what "it" is.

Science is not a monolithic entity - there are many methods out there. What you describe is the so-called hypothetico-deductive method. Another version, grounded in another equally scientific practice would be

1. Come into situation X with preconceived theoretical notions Y & Z.
2. Observe X using concepts and ideas from Y & Z.
3. Form hypothesis Z v1.
4. Devise test(s) for hypothesis Z v1.
5. Measure and analyse results.
6. Try and fit results into the accepted parameters of Y & Z.
7. If unsuccessful, repeat, repeat 4, 5 and 6 until satisfied.
 
  

Page: 12345(6)789

 
  
Add Your Reply