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: 1 ... 34567(8)9

 
 
sdv (non-human)
20:40 / 22.01.07
toksik,

Given this "aspects of dawkins work i do not find to be correct" and the complete lack of position and further the refusal to engage in any analysis of Dawkins position. I'll wait until you actually produce a gesture of agreement or a reasonable critique of the book.

The review by Steve Weinberg in the current TLS is worth reading, even though I suspect his conclusion and the attack on Islam is an error.
 
 
multitude.tv
21:00 / 22.01.07
SDV said : "The review by Steve Weinberg in the current TLS is worth reading, even though I suspect his conclusion and the attack on Islam is an error

It is a good review, not sure that bit on Islam was necessary.
 
 
Char Aina
21:25 / 22.01.07
i was asking you to evidence your initial assumption, and your refusal to do so has lead to this extended dialogue. what i have said in PM is not relevant, especially as the piece you quote does not validate your initial comment. that seems besides the point, however.
(as does the open quoting of PMs, a contravention of barbelith ettiquete)

while this specific point has been tangent to the main discussion, i find that it is a demonstration of the flaws in your approach, flaws i have found to be insurmountable obstacles to my continuing a dialogue with you about anything other than those flaws. as you will not engage with me on the various points i have made about your approach, i am afraid i find there is no point in my continuing this discussion.

i'm sorry i have given you what you feel is an excuse to continue to ignore the bulk of my posts.

i don't think i am getting anything out of this thread, and certainly not from my interactions with you, and so i shall leave you to your discussion for now.

if anyone needs me to answer a direct question or give specific comment, feel free to PM me. that offer is open to anyone.
 
 
Lurid Archive
21:38 / 22.01.07
sdv: I think it would be helpful to others if you were a little less cryptic, and spent a little longer developing your argument, rather than alluding to it.

On the whole it is best not to assume that a one line reference to a book will be at all comprehensible. I, for one, have absolutely no idea what point you are making by saying, "The quotes would be from the intro to anti-oedpius and deleuze writing foucault." I haven't read the book in question, so thats a problem, but it is generally considered good ettiquette to at least summarise the gist of the argument one is relying on, especially when asked for clarification.

Please note that I am not assuming an opposing philosophical position, I'm merely urging you to make your posts accessible to a wider audience.
 
 
HCE
21:49 / 22.01.07
I have read it, and it's not helping me figure out what idea is being put forward here. Neither the preface nor the introduction are very long, and I'd be more than happy to scan in and email either or both to anybody who believes that will get this thread going anywhere. I can have it to you in ten minutes.
 
 
Quantum
09:17 / 23.01.07
I'm intrigued that the main objections I have to Dawkins are mirrored by multitudetv and sdv in this thread- dogmatic characterisation of 'religion' as delusional and judgemental (almost like a straw man), atheism as rational and logical etc. etc.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:33 / 23.01.07
Anti-Oedipus has cropped up before to mean SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPI'MRIGHTSHUTUPSHUTUP, and I did my best to work out what sdv was on about then, but I don't have a copy handy. Scans pls - the usual pigeon hole.

Back ontopic - the review points out that Dawkins targets the "Big Two" - Islam and Christianity. Mind you, it would take remarkable courage to start off by giving the Jews a shoeing, n'est-ce pas? However, Islam has no centralised authority, like Rome or Canterbury, and Dawkins moves on to attacking the proofs of the existence of God, which is an attack on the theological underpinnings of religious faith rather than the authoritarian structures of religious societies or groups. So, that seems a little confused. You can take evade's route - that religion is "illogical", and for some reason that illogicality necessarily leads to authoritarianism, but this seems to depend on a specific and flawed understanding of what logic is.

So, what's the angle here? The review states at the end that a suicide bomber is no less Islamic than a peaceful scholar who decries suicide bombing, but it seems unscientific to exclude the possibility that he may also be no more Islamic, either. The idea that if you take away religion everyone is a secular humanist and gives each other huggles seems unsupported, as does the idea that the danger lies in institutional religion rather than religiosity in general - which seems not to be Dawkins' argument, or else he would not be so concerned with whether or not God exists, rather than whether or not God is making hirself useful.
 
 
Quantum
11:01 / 23.01.07
So sort of 'God doesn't exist so u r stupid, and anyway religion causes wars and suffering so it's bad'?
 
 
Supaglue
12:27 / 23.01.07
the review points out that Dawkins targets the "Big Two" - Islam and Christianity. Mind you, it would take remarkable courage to start off by giving the Jews a shoeing, n'est-ce pas?

To be fair, the reviewer appears slightly in error. In the God Delusion, Dawkins starts by making it plain he will concentrate on the 'Big three' Abrahmic religions, including judaism. The early chapters spend some time denigrating the old testament and its god - purposefully specific to all three religions.

Dawkins also explains that he will mostly concentrate on Christianity in the book, as it the religion most familiar to him, but it would be wrong to say he doesn't have a 'pop' at Jews. He singles out the Jewish lobby groups in the US, for example. He makes it clear from the outset that when he writes about any specific religion, see: all religions.

I think the reviewer in that article is just itching to launch into one against Islam.
 
 
Quantum
14:00 / 23.01.07
Just reading that alternet interview where Dawkins talks about Atheist pride;

"Until recently nobody dared admit that they were gay. Now, they're rather proud to do so. Nowadays it's impossible to get elected to public office if you're an atheist, and I think that's got to change. The Gay Rights Movement raised consciousness. It initiated the idea of Gay Pride. I think we've got to have Atheist Pride, Atheist Consciousness."

Quite apart from the validity of the comparison, is it impossible to get elected if you're an atheist? Does he mean in the states? He implies it with;

"I think it's pretty clear that a fair number of members of Congress must be lying because not a single one of them admits to being an atheist."

Is that right?
 
 
el d.
14:01 / 23.01.07
from Haus:
... I'm not sure how an institution of power based on religion differs from any other institution of power. Is it just that the precepts are more irrational than, say, a capitalist or aristocratic power base?

I think I stated quite clearly that religion tends to get controlled by those in power. (By such diverse means as nepotism and sponsoring.) Now, perhaps I should in fact use the word "irrational" for the state of subjugation the servants and slaves suffer from. There’s truly no (sane) argument for upholding servitude and serfdom, except maybe those in a position to benefit from that system would like to keep it that way. As I stated before, religion tends to lead to religious institutions (these need not be centralised in order to function properly ). These institutions tend to uphold the status quo, in which they themselves are definitely part of those who enjoy the fruits of slave labour. (Speaking metaphorically, there.)

Summarising I’d like to state the following:
Religious institutions, because of their ties to the ruling elites, tend to use their irrational argumentation to stifle the unrest of the populace by providing the rulers with a legitimization of the status quo. (Often also by promising riches in the before mentioned permanently intangible dimension, which may be reached after death. )

Of course capitalists and aristocrats also have other ways of legitimizing their existence, but these tend to be falsifiable, and thus subject to discussion. (The thing about being a higher being didn’t work out to well for most of the European rulers. And the "invisible hand" tends to deal quite one-sidedly. Again, please note the nature of these examples as being what they are: Rethorical statements used to illustrate my point. As such statements necessarily need to be quite short, they do not seek to convey the complex perceived reality of the stuff mentioned. Please make use of this disclaimer at leisure. If a detailed study of the statements in question is necessary, I suggest opening a new thread about these aspects of history or using one of those already present.)

The strength of the religious legitimization of power lies in its status of intangibility.

And that´s one of the basic ideas of atheism: pulling religion from it´s "true" throne and seeing it as the socially crafted structure it is.
 
 
Supaglue
14:16 / 23.01.07
Quite apart from the validity of the comparison, is it impossible to get elected if you're an atheist? Does he mean in the states? He implies it with;

I think he is referring to the states, Quantum. All his lectures and his Foundation's video explicitly mention the US, the country's hegemony of religion in politics and, I think, in US society in general. In fact, I think the Foundation was set up to specifically further atheism in America.

I suppose it's to be an atheist lobby group.

I don't know enough to comment if it's as bad as he makes out though.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:17 / 23.01.07
Yeah, but religious discourse is perfectly capable of doing that as well. Study of holy books as literature and the historicity of religious texts is going on within religious bodies. Again, this seems to be an argument that is being advanced from the position of not actually having engaged with the bodies one is making pronouncements about.

However. Let's say for a moment that we want to narrow the focus - it isn't the specific "irrationality" of religion that is bad, but its use to shore up entrenched capitalist or aristocratic powers. So, how does one look at the leader of the Church of England, say, using his position of moral leadership to criticise the invasion of Iraq? I mean, apart from going blah blah spectacle fishcakes? How about Quakers? Liberation theology?

So, you need to think about what constitutes a religious institution, and then think about whether religious institutions invariably shore up aristocratic or capitalist regimes. And that ignores the broader question of religion, really. So, to modify my suggestion that there seems to be an assumption that without religion everyone would be a secular humanist and give each other huggles, we appear to be saying here that without religious institutions everyone would be a philanthropic Bakhuninite and give each other collectivised huggles. Again, I'm not sure that that is the case.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:32 / 23.01.07
I think he is referring to the states, Quantum. All his lectures and his Foundation's video explicitly mention the US, the country's hegemony of religion in politics and, I think, in US society in general.

I think that's correct, and it does raise quite an interesting question. sdv and evade are talking about religious institutions, and likening them to fascism or to mechanisms for upholding the current oppressive status quo - which is to a degree fair enough, apart from the Godwhine. However, it's worth noting that George Bush, notably, does not appear to go to church. He does not plug into an established, instituted or organised church hierarchy. For him, religion is simply believing in God, having a personal relationship with God and finding that God and he tend to agree on most issues. Would he still believe that he talked to God and god talked to him if there were no religion - that is, no idea of "God"? I imagine not. Would that make him any less dogmatic? Again, I'd say probably not. There is no established church behind this obtuseness.
 
 
Quantum
14:37 / 23.01.07
that´s one of the basic ideas of atheism: pulling religion from it´s "true" throne and seeing it as the socially crafted structure it is. evade

I'm going to disagree with that I'm afraid, you seem to be broadening the term 'atheism' to include your political proclivities. Atheism is about not believing in god, not necessarily undermining the aristocratic power base. You seem to also ignore the criticism religions receive from other religions. Think of the Protestant reformation- Luther's criticism of the Catholic church was similar in tone to what you are saying, despite his theism.
 
 
Quantum
14:54 / 23.01.07
Thing is, I can see why Dawkins would want to oppose the rise of the religious right (see Theocracywatch.org for extensive details) but that seems to be a secondary reason, the first being to show the world the truth that god doesn't exist;

Why did you write The God Delusion?

RD: I care passionately about the truth. I believe that the truth about whether there is a God in the Universe is possibly the most important truth there is. I happen to think it's false, but I think it's a really important question.
 
 
multitude.tv
15:08 / 23.01.07
Atheism is about not believing in god, not necessarily undermining the aristocratic power base. You seem to also ignore the criticism religions receive from other religions.

Atheism is about not believing in the “notion of god”, the “idea of god”, “any god”, etc. As Dawkins points out, many religious folks are Atheist about other religious folk’s god(s). For example, most Christians don’t believe Shiva, Jupiter, exist. Furthermore, even these pseudo-atheisms (not believing in the “ruler’s” god) have, in many traditions, a political significance. One need only think of Moses in Egypt or Christ to the Romans/Priesthood.

Not to mention larger Atheisms, the atheisms of Nietzsche or Marx (arguably the most significant Atheist thinkers prior to the recent Anglo-English Science-Atheists), have been tied to undermining the political structures as they stand. Nietzsche attacks moralists, priests, and the sickly aristocratic class, and Marx indicts religion as a coercive force in maintaining Bourgeois Capitalism. You're correct in that an Atheism doesn’t necessarily have a aristocratic target, but various Atheisms often include the state/king/pharaoh/power structure in its sight. Atheisms also have their histories.

One could go on to talk of the homogenizing force of religion throughout a society. This is what Dawkins is getting at in the claim that no “out” Atheist could get elected in the US. Not to mention the continual link between a particular religious affiliations with loyalty to the state (state churches, religious-state leaders, the pope, notions of sovereignty rooted in divine-right). Even the oft repeated coupling of “God & Country”, and “Under God”, and “In God we trust”, in the US. Very often the very notion of “not believing in God” has a determinable and intentional political affect; that is, it is an immediate political statement.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:23 / 23.01.07
As does believing in God. Most obviously, in the smuggling of Catholic priests into Protestant countries, the anti-discrimination legislation in Baltimore, the anti-Catholicism of the American Party, Filmore's Presidential campaign... and, of course, currently claims are being made that Islam is precisely _not_ aligned with the values of states - that muslims are muslims first and Britons, say, second, which is just the opposite of the idea that religiosity makes one congruent with the authority and aims of the state.

These one-eyed trips through history aren't going to get us very far.

Regarding the claim that not believing in Jupiter makes one an atheist qua Jupiter - that's just wrong, surely? An atheist is somebody who does not believe in any deity - a (without) and theos (god). Somebody who does not believe in Jupiter, but does believe in Allah, is not an atheist but a person who does not believe in Jupiter. Someone who denies thhe possibility of the existence of both Jupiter and Mithras, and any other divine being, is an atheist. Not believing in Jupiter is necessary but not sufficient for atheism.
 
 
multitude.tv
16:00 / 23.01.07
that muslims are muslims first and Britons, say, second, which is just the opposite of the idea that religiosity makes one congruent with the authority and aims of the state.

Your right, I should have included any "power structure", oh, I did. Including, what I thought may have been apparent, in the priesthood, or a particular religious institution itself.

Regarding the claim that not believing in Jupiter makes one an atheist qua Jupiter - that's just wrong, surely? An atheist is somebody who does not believe in any deity - a (without) and theos (god).

Dawkins makes this claim, about "everybody being an atheists, really deep down." Which, I agree is a bit weak, hence why I called these positions "pseudo-atheisms", a major Atheism would be one that denied the validity of the notion of deity.

Well, I'm not too sure about your definition here either. Would it include, for example those that believe gods exist, but go about their lives "without" respecting those deities. This may be how atheism is conceived in the ancient world, and perhaps the thought behind the charge of "atheism" attributed by one religious believer of one god to another of a different (or different conception of) god.
 
 
illmatic
16:15 / 23.01.07
For example, most Christians don’t believe Shiva, Jupiter, exist.

This is where my brain locks up with regards to this thread. To say that the ideas that revolve around Gods are simply a question of whether or not they "exist" or not is a huge oversimplification. For example, with Shiva, I know even given the paucity of my knowledge, that Shiva is a extremely complex signifer for talking about consciousness, meditative experience and a whole other passel of ontological questions, packed into one concept that is frequently anthromorphised. Simple "belief" really is moot if you want to engage with the questions this raises in a serious way. And of course, other questions of national and group identity and definition, folk magic and supersitions, regional powerplays and reactionary chauvinsim also get bound into these discourses to varying degrees.

I'm not aware of having any worshippers of Jupiter (Jovians?) with us, but I'm sure if we we had access to some contemporary believers, they might inform us that their religion was equally complex. This is where Dawkins point about us "all being atheists deep down" falls down for me.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:25 / 23.01.07
I don't think so. Hippolytus, most obviously, does not show respect for Aphrodite, but is not at any point considered an atheist. To be honest, I'd very strongly suggest that you don't try to defend this point, or if you want to start producing primary sources in which a Greek describes a Persian as an atheist because they believe in different gods. Have a look at The Clouds, to start with - see where that takes you.

Oh, and if you believe that the refutation:

Your right, I should have included any "power structure", oh, I did. Including, what I thought may have been apparent, in the priesthood, or a particular religious institution itself.

Includes Islam, could you please tell me where that religious institution functions as a power structure. Quite simply, and I'm sure you know far more about this than I do, could you tell me who the supreme spiritual leader of, say, global Shi'a Islam is? The equivalent of the Pope? And brief me quickly on the "power structure" - the organisation of the structure whereby that supreme leader exerts control on what is happening at every Shi'a mosque in the world? Ta.

From there, you could tell us why this perfect circularity - a religion supports a religion's power structure by being a religion, atheism challenges a religion by being atheism which challenges a relgion - should have anything to do with broader or meaningful social power structures, which make up the burthen of your claims about the reforming power of atheism in the hands of Marx? A hermetic system without social factors is neutral in terms of the broader desirability or undesirability of "religious structure", if that religious structure is not associated with the political status quo, as you had previously assumed organised religions to be. This is messy stuff, multitude: you'd do better to take the time to think up some questions rather than trying to find reasons why you were right all along.
 
 
multitude.tv
17:01 / 23.01.07
I don't think so. Hippolytus, most obviously, does not show respect for Aphrodite, but is not at any point considered an atheist. To be honest, I'd very strongly suggest that you don't try to defend this point, or if you want to start producing primary sources in which a Greek describes a Persian as an atheist because they believe in different gods. Have a look at The Clouds, to start with - see where that takes you.

It's not something I think needs to be defended here, its a common enough position in the history of what is called atheism. "Atheism has been a criminal offense in many parts of the world, and in some cases a "wrong belief" was equated with "unbelief" in order to condemn someone with differing beliefs as an "atheist". (Wiki) You probably won't like it haus, I mean the example used.

And brief me quickly on the "power structure" - the organisation of the structure whereby that supreme leader exerts control on what is happening at every Shi'a mosque in the world? Ta.

I'd simply suggest following up on SDV's reading suggestions.

and that last bit, sorry but I just don't get what your going on about.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:19 / 23.01.07
That's OK. Sometimes things are going to be too complex for you. Possibly a more able reader, like Eggs, can take it over and help to explain it for you. I'm sorry you don't have access to any primary sources, or the intellectual curiosity to seek any out, but perhaps it's best - books can be very dangerous things in the wrong hands. Those papercuts can be a bitch. Best stay with Wikipedia, which, notably, does not say who called Diagoras the first atheist, or when. However, you're not asking questions, which explains the quality of your answers.
 
 
Quantum
18:50 / 23.01.07
Nuh-uh, wikipedia is dangerous too- check out their wacky strong and weak atheism page, In earlier philosophical publications, the terms negative atheism and positive atheism were more common. It's almost as though atheists aren't a homogonous bloc, which would terrifyingly imply that religious believers aren't a cohesive grouping either. Damn that wikipedia.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:39 / 23.01.07
True, and not paying attention to wikipedia is also dangerous, since even a cursory read of it reveals that Diagoras stated specifically, if you believe the far later accounts, that there were no gods at all. As such, the case is unrelated to:

Would it include, for example those that believe gods exist, but go about their lives "without" respecting those deities. This may be how atheism is conceived in the ancient world, and perhaps the thought behind the charge of "atheism" attributed by one religious believer of one god to another of a different (or different conception of) god.

Socrates is an interesting one, but he was not executed for atheism - he is called atheos where? In a satirical play? In his own summary of what people say about him? In the fevered mind of a wikipedia writer? Likewise, who is the first person we see describing Diagoras as atheos? Cicero, as far as I know - getting on for four centuries later.

I asked for an example of a Greek calling a Persian an atheist because he worshipped different gods. Not that he denied the existence of gods, not that he was mistakenly believed not to believe that any gods existed due to an Aristophanic piss-take (the reference is Apology chapter 26, if you want to look at it - Meletus accuses Socrates of not believing in any gods at all, not of believing in different gods), but specifically that this person, who had a different pantheon, was an atheist. Not seeing it so far, certainly not until some centuries after the example multitude.tv gave of Socrates, earlier in this very thread. Even then, we get into the complexities of the word atheos and its relationship to "atheist", but I don't think we'll get that far in, so we may as well not concern ourselves overmuch.
 
 
multitude.tv
23:46 / 23.01.07
I thought you would like that link ☺

I suppose Anaxagoras’ trial isn’t a sufficient example for you. Charged with atheism (and/or) impiety as well as Medism (sympathy for Persia) c. 433 BCE.

That really wasn’t the point either. I suppose my formulation of “the charge of "atheism" attributed by one religious believer of one god to another of a different (or different conception of) god” wasn’t precisely vague enough, oh well. My point is that it (atheism as “wrong belief”) is a commonly understood usage of the charge “atheism”, common enough that it's an assertion on a wiki page without a citation (and perhaps it needs one) that’s all. Sorry you seem to get all bent up over it; amusing though.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:22 / 24.01.07
So, "you got bent up" is what the young people are saying instead of "oh dear, I got pwned" these days? You young people and your slang.

Primary sources, old chap. Primary sources. You don't appear to know the charge sheet - find me a primary source that describes him as atheos, and likens that to worshipping the wrong Gods. In fact, Anaxagoras was charged with either (a religious outrage) or Medism, but one would again have to look at the primary sources for that, wouldn't one? Which would involve scary books.

It's always interesting to see how dogmatic and ignorant the enemies of dogmatism and ignorance can be.
 
 
Quantum
08:42 / 24.01.07
Well, ancient usage and etymology aside let's have a quick look at the old 'pedia for current usage of the word athism;

"Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is commonly defined as the denial of theism, amounting to the positive assertion that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism. However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities..."

Now it's cousin the wiktionary;

"1. A person who does not have a belief that one or more deities or gods exist. (weak atheism)
2. A person who believes that no god exists (strong atheism)."

So to use 'atheist' to mean 'someone who believes in different gods' would be wrong. I realise that bringing up semantics can sometimes be problematic, but Dawkins would want us to be proper atheists I am sure.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:13 / 24.01.07
Well, yes. Oddly enough, Anaxagoras is also credited as the first theist, because he took the Empedoclean divinity of Love and Strife and postulated instead the divinity of a sort of universal motivator - that is, a single god.
 
 
Quantum
09:41 / 24.01.07
He sounds like a rubbish atheist to me.
 
 
el d.
11:02 / 24.01.07
Yeah, but religious discourse is perfectly capable of doing that as well.

Oh Yeah? Well then give me a primary source on that. As far as I´m informed, critical discourse within a given religious structure mainly leads to heretics burned on stakes… or 40 years of bloody war.

Study of holy books as literature and the historicity of religious texts is going on within religious bodies.

Yep, they study them all right, but do you really think someone believing the bible to be god-sent can simultaneously see it as a book written by humans, for human reasons? As far as I´ve read, ( example again ) catholic scholars debating this point tend to be a bit biased about this…
I know Christians who are actually critical of all that merde, but maintain a personal relation with their deity of choice without claiming to subscribe to any dogma (religous institutions, groups or bible banging groups). And I´m game with that, except for the fact that even these individuals tend to have a handy answer for all cognitive dissonances that tend to crop up, which is: God did it. And being the intangible ueber-being that it is, it´s will is unfathomable.

Let's say for a moment that we want to narrow the focus - it isn't the specific "irrationality" of religion that is bad, but its use to shore up entrenched capitalist or aristocratic powers.

Perhaps you´re right, but I do think one thing leads to another here...

So, how does one look at the leader of the Church of England, say, using his position of moral leadership to criticise the invasion of Iraq? How about Quakers? Liberation theology?

It´s all a question of the argumentation used. If the leader of the Church of Satan says to abolish birth clinics because satan said so, well, that´s just plain rubbish, isn´t it? (extremely put, of course.) Now if any other given religious leader uses that argument, does that make it any better? Don´t invade Irak because.... it´s evil to do so?
If the argument is a rational one (not based on god-given morals, but on probabilities of outcomes and their effects on the overall happyness of the people there), well then ok, no problem, that guy can be leader of any sect he wants to.

As to quakers, eat this:

Although Quakers throughout most of their history and in most parts of the world today consider Quakerism to be a Christian movement, some (Quakers) (principally in some Meetings in the United States and the United Kingdom) now consider themselves universalist, agnostic, atheist, pagan, or nontheist, or do not accept any religious label.

good old ´pedia

So apparently religious belief without any necessity to see anything as a dogma is quite useful. It´s the dogma thing, the “absolute truth” bit, that always leaves that bitter authoritarian tang. ( That´s my critique of Dawkins as well, there. ) I think I mentioned that before, didn´t I?

Without religious institutions everyone would be a philanthropic Bakhuninite and give each other collectivised huggles.


Oh yes, lets!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:06 / 24.01.07
Well then give me a primary source on that.

Vatican 2?
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:22 / 24.01.07
This is where my brain locks up with regards to this thread. To say that the ideas that revolve around Gods are simply a question of whether or not they "exist" or not is a huge oversimplification. - eggs

That may be true, but I think we can agree that there are a great number of religious people for whom the existence of their deity is actually rather crucial. I'd also venture that the existence of a deity or, more accurately equivocation on the question of its existence, is fundamental even in religious experience that is based more on metaphor.

That aside, as an atheist I don't deny that religion can provide inspiration and comfort in ways that are essentially independent of questions of existence. As an atheist, I'm not dismissing those aspects of religious experience, though in any concrete example I am likely to be critical as a matter of course. I think the kind of skepticism I usually try to forefront has value of its own, which is one of the reasons I call myself an atheist.

But lets turn your comment on its head. If existence isn't a big deal, then neither should atheism be a very big deal. Yet my experience is that while people sometimes tell me I'm missing the point with all this overly literal existence stuff, it is pretty rare that someone will pause and agree with me on the limited grounds of the non-existence of deities. (In fact, it is far more common in my experience for religious people to take existence questions rather seriously but ymmv.)

Actually, it is often seen as arrogant to disbelieve in gods while it is almost never seen as arrogant to disbelieve in any particular god - since religious people do that all the time. This is the point Dawkins was making, I think, since one is exposed to this criticism quite often as an atheist. I've met agnostics who go further and say that it is ok to disbelieve in any and every god that has ever been worshipped, but it is supremely arrogant and unjustifiable to call oneself an atheist.

I think that to understand Dawkins on religion, you really have to be aware that he sees himself as fighting for atheist rights (I think the stuff about no openly atheist politician in the US is plausible - I can dig up refs if people want). As such, he is speaking to a people in the US and Europe about the kinds of religion that are most common - hence he largely talks about the Abrahamic religions and popular manisfestations and understandings of them. So while he is aware that there is diversity and moderation in religion, his aim is to undermine the automatic respect that he thinks religion receives; whether concentrating on religious extremes is the right way to do that is another question.
 
 
el d.
11:24 / 24.01.07
well, it was the second one in ... oh, in about a bit less than 2,000 years?
And despite the "liberal" nature of the reforms of Vatican 2, the church continues to defend it´s doctrine as the one and only true church of christ. ( somewhat softened, but still. ) And the aforementioned liberation theology is persecuted with fervour, while opus dei self-flagellates happily ever after.

Didn´t change all that much, did it? That council was really more of a marketing meeting than critical dicourse about what the church is actually all about.

Try another one, please.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:28 / 24.01.07
Sorry, evade, but can you actually discuss this in a civilised or respecful fashion? If not, then you might want to join sdv and multitude.tv in kiddies' corner. Right now, you are giving the impression not only of not being very interested in other people's ideas, but actually not having a very clear grip on your own, or any wish to analyse them. That's fine, but it means that you are, in effect, dedicated to a set of articles of faith - student-council-Marxist articles of faith rather than religious ones, but with a very similar effect. So, for example, I note that your refutation of Vatican 2 did not contain a single factual comment about Vatican 2 - just some vague generalisations about what you thought it was. The poor quality of this argumentation, along with schoolgirl taunts like "eat that", may be intended to provoke a response at a comfortable level, but is not necessariyl good for the thread as a whole.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 34567(8)9

 
  
Add Your Reply