Dawkins’ lecture in Phoenix 7 Mar 200818 Sep 2017 I (and apparently Jim Lippard) went to see Dawkins’ talk based on his The God Delusion, which I have critiqued before. I was impressed at the technique. It was definitely the very best Revivalist Sermon I have seen. I was not impressed by the content, nor by the fact that Dawkins was playing for laughs, applause and identification of Us versus Them. In particular I was annoyed that those of us who do not condemn someone for holding religious beliefs were caricatured as “feeling good that someone has religion somewhere”. Bullshit. That is not why we dislike the Us’n’Themism of TGD. We dislike it because no matter what other beliefs an intelligent person may hold, so long as they accept the importance of science and the need for a secular society, we simply do not care if they also like the taste of ear wax, having sex with trees, or believing in a deity or two. Way to go, Richard. Good bit of framing and parodying the opposition. Real rational. I noted with interest that he seems to have abandoned his claim that an agnostic is somebody who has an evenly balanced probability assessment of the existence of God, which is total crap. But he failed to say if that meant he now accepts that while atheists and theists alike are making knowledge claims, agnostics simply aren’t. I doubt it. What I most came away with was that he sets it up that one simply cannot understand the existence of religion, and so must treat it as an evil, immoral, or simply irrational thing. Apart from begging the question (since he is so fond of talking about logical errors), it makes the origins of religion a miracle. Now Dawkins is fond of miracles. He has said that evolution begins with the first replicator, ignoring the fact that replication systems are complicated things that cannot appear, as it were, by fiat. It’s a scientific miracle as he presents it [I believe there is a better, evolutionary, account of replication, which Dawkins cannot, because for him replication is the sine qua non, the necessary precondition for evolution]. If we demonise the God of the Old Testament, as he does, one is left wondering why in the hell the Hebrews ever wrote that book in the first place. Of course, the evolution of the Old Testament is a complex social process, beginning, I believe, from a henotheism in which YHWH and El (two distinct deities in the beginning) were tribal gods among other tribal gods (that is, they acted as social totems). On that basis one can easily explain why the OT deity is jealous, a bully and so on – the other sort of religion, ethical monotheism as it is sometimes called, was centuries in the future. But Richard doesn’t want to understand; he wants to demonise, diminish and eliminate the Enemy, so as to make the Bright Us, the ones with the Red A, confortable. As you say, Richard, simply because a belief makes us comfortable, doesn’t mean it is true. And while we’re on truth, let’s stop pretending all this talk of truth is scientific and not religious in itself. Scientific ideas are tested or not, reliable or not. They are never True, just good enough. To talk about Truth is to help yourself to the trappings of religion under the counter, as it were. And this is the final point I want to make about Dawkins on religion: he is trying to produce exactly the same effects as religion does. Social cohesion, derogation of the Other, ideas that everyone can take for granted. I wish it were the case that he was taking the scientific approach here, but at best he’s using the cachet of science to promote his quasi-religion. To clarify: I don’t think there’s a god or a higher power. I think we need to have freedom for all from the tyranny of religious extremism and absolutism. I think religions should not have exceptional standing in a secular society. And I think that includes the rhetorical polemics of Richard Dawkins. It isn’t a religion yet, but it’s not from a lack of trying on his part. If you want free-thinking, then think freely. Don’t just kneejerk react to religions around you: think. Evolution Religion Sermon Social evolution
Ecology and Biodiversity 50 words for snow 4: what counts as sociocultural? 3 Oct 20171 Mar 2019 Series Conceptual confusion The economics of cultural categories What are phenomena? What counts as sociocultural? Species Constructing phenomena Explanations and phenomena Jim Harrison made the following comment on the last post: … I have trouble understanding how you distinguish the s and the c in your pseudo equation. You mention… Read More
Social evolution Perspective 8 Jun 2007 A 26 year old woman is convicted of twice driving while on probation for having done so drunk earlier. She is an adult who knew very well what the consequences of her actions would be, for her. Fortunately, she didn’t kill or maim anyone. She is sentenced to a 45… Read More
I have to go with Stuart Ritchie…I didn’t hear the speech, but in typical Dawkins (not sound bites) he is careful with his words and non-absolutist (except science trumps religion). Certainly a there is less of a battle against the simple religious person who is not an extremist, but if that person can’t analyze the probability that his religion accurately reflects reality, how is that person making other political decisions which affect the rest of us? Society will be better off when people use rational thinking to reach their conclusions. De facto, religion must become extinct.
C.W. – We can’t have a society where all beliefs are treated equally. That would be anarchy. Those who fail to accept that their beliefs are not supported by evidence, have to be criticized. And if you would have not supported Science, than please do away with your electricity, your purchased food, your present and future medical care, your automobile, etc. Enjoy your life.
C.W. You don’t have to do anything except die. You can believe what you want. But conclusions drawn from scientific inquiry have led us to our modern advances in technology. Not religion. That is a fact, not a viewpoint. There are an infinite number of beliefs anyone can have. If they are not provable, what’s the point? That’s fantasy, it is anti-science at its core. And if you can’t understand that, then it scares me if you vote, though we have a secular state. I’m concerned people like you vote based on fantasy and that can harm me. Science=atheism=abigfootism=aastrology=ahomeopathicmedicinism=atoothfairism=acasperthefriendlyghostism Dawkin’s methodology fills certain gaps. Others have a more hard line approach, others less. The truly religiously deluded will require some form of treatment once the biological cause of their impairment is pinpointed. Godspeed.
J.P. – We’re best off trusting politics to people who have demonstrated with their past experience, their historical depth of logical thinking and the apparent logic of their proposed plans that they are the best candidate. But it is a subjective evaluation for each voter.
J.P. – We’re best off trusting politics to people who have demonstrated with their past experience, their historical depth of logical thinking and the apparent logic of their proposed plans that they are the best candidate. But it is a subjective evaluation for each voter.
J.P. – We’re best off trusting politics to people who have demonstrated with their past experience, their historical depth of logical thinking and the apparent logic of their proposed plans that they are the best candidate. But it is a subjective evaluation for each voter.
J.P. – Please do. Let me add to the list of things which should become extinct (other than as amusements): 1. Astrology 2. Alchemy 3. Santa Claus, the reindeer, the elves 4. Homeopathy 5. The Cowboys were the good guys the Indians were the bad guys 6. Religion…oooppss, already said that. Superstitions. Or vote for someone who wants those types of things to thrive. Please vote rationally.
J.P. – Please do. Let me add to the list of things which should become extinct (other than as amusements): 1. Astrology 2. Alchemy 3. Santa Claus, the reindeer, the elves 4. Homeopathy 5. The Cowboys were the good guys the Indians were the bad guys 6. Religion…oooppss, already said that. Superstitions. Or vote for someone who wants those types of things to thrive. Please vote rationally.
J.P. – Please do. Let me add to the list of things which should become extinct (other than as amusements): 1. Astrology 2. Alchemy 3. Santa Claus, the reindeer, the elves 4. Homeopathy 5. The Cowboys were the good guys the Indians were the bad guys 6. Religion…oooppss, already said that. Superstitions. Or vote for someone who wants those types of things to thrive. Please vote rationally.
J.P. – The non-religiously impaired dump astrology and alchemy for astronomy and chemistry. We also dump religion for philosophy. Science is based on fact. Nothing else my list was. That’s a fact!
John Pieret: “But do we want to fight them by adopting the same tactics as our “enemy”? At what cost?” Which tactics are you referring to? Dawkins giving public lectures explaining why he believes what he believes, and criticizing religion? If your objection is to Dawkins speaking and writing books, and you would also object to the 19th century orations of Robert Ingersoll and Thomas Paine’s authorship of _Age of Reason_, then I am in vehement disagreement with your position. The country I live in is one where things like this and this are happening.
John Pieret: “But do we want to fight them by adopting the same tactics as our “enemy”? At what cost?” Which tactics are you referring to? Dawkins giving public lectures explaining why he believes what he believes, and criticizing religion? If your objection is to Dawkins speaking and writing books, and you would also object to the 19th century orations of Robert Ingersoll and Thomas Paine’s authorship of _Age of Reason_, then I am in vehement disagreement with your position. The country I live in is one where things like this and this are happening.
John Pieret: “But do we want to fight them by adopting the same tactics as our “enemy”? At what cost?” Which tactics are you referring to? Dawkins giving public lectures explaining why he believes what he believes, and criticizing religion? If your objection is to Dawkins speaking and writing books, and you would also object to the 19th century orations of Robert Ingersoll and Thomas Paine’s authorship of _Age of Reason_, then I am in vehement disagreement with your position. The country I live in is one where things like this and this are happening.
If we demonise the God of the Old Testament, as he does, one is left wondering why in the hell the Hebrews ever wrote that book in the first place Why they wrote it has nothing to do with why we demonize Him. Dawkins is absolutely right in demonizing that miserable rotten excuse for a God. There’s no redeeming value in Him, and he serves as a piss poor example for any civilization. As Thomas Paine said, a cruel God makes a cruel man. Do I have to list all the horrifying verses here? Do we need to offer up a burnt sacrifice so that the aroma “pleases him”? I can tell you one thing, He’s caused nothing but misery and pain in my family and in my life, and I wish he’d never been invented.
If we demonise the God of the Old Testament, as he does, one is left wondering why in the hell the Hebrews ever wrote that book in the first place Why they wrote it has nothing to do with why we demonize Him. Dawkins is absolutely right in demonizing that miserable rotten excuse for a God. There’s no redeeming value in Him, and he serves as a piss poor example for any civilization. As Thomas Paine said, a cruel God makes a cruel man. Do I have to list all the horrifying verses here? Do we need to offer up a burnt sacrifice so that the aroma “pleases him”? I can tell you one thing, He’s caused nothing but misery and pain in my family and in my life, and I wish he’d never been invented.
C.W. – No you don’t have to pay taxes. There will be repurcussions if you don’t, but you don’t have to. I can’t only the material exists. So, what’s the point? Religious people can be scientists, just like murderers can be doctors. It doesn’t make religion true or murder right. Gaps in communication approaches. I’m not a theocrat, because I don’t claim my approach originates from a make-believe, imaginary being. I don’t know if the treatment will be enforced. It won’t be the first time treatment is imposed on people for mental debilitation. It would likely be a matter of degree.
C.W. – No you don’t have to pay taxes. There will be repurcussions if you don’t, but you don’t have to. I can’t only the material exists. So, what’s the point? Religious people can be scientists, just like murderers can be doctors. It doesn’t make religion true or murder right. Gaps in communication approaches. I’m not a theocrat, because I don’t claim my approach originates from a make-believe, imaginary being. I don’t know if the treatment will be enforced. It won’t be the first time treatment is imposed on people for mental debilitation. It would likely be a matter of degree.
C.W. – No you don’t have to pay taxes. There will be repurcussions if you don’t, but you don’t have to. I can’t only the material exists. So, what’s the point? Religious people can be scientists, just like murderers can be doctors. It doesn’t make religion true or murder right. Gaps in communication approaches. I’m not a theocrat, because I don’t claim my approach originates from a make-believe, imaginary being. I don’t know if the treatment will be enforced. It won’t be the first time treatment is imposed on people for mental debilitation. It would likely be a matter of degree.
Tough to get on with the real job in a democracy where most of the citizen’s fantasies prevent them from voting in a rational manner. That’s why we shout!
Bravo for calling out Dawkins — a fine take-down of his polemical excesses and his abuse of the idea of rationality. However, I think it is incorrect to call what he is doing religious or pseudo-religious as such. It seems to me that what Dawkins and those allied with him are doing is creating a political movement. In this sense, the vilification of religion they engage in is an expressly political reaction to the way politics has come to be used by the religious in recent decades. Of course, any sufficiently fervent political movement is functionally equivalent to religion in the kind of Us vs Them mentality it produces in the minds of its followers. So the kicker is: by according religion such a uniquely heinous place in the bestiary of human irrationality, they end up discounting well-tested models from neurology and social psychology which show that the irrational aspects of religion are manifestations of general mechanisms of human meaning generation (and distortion) which can occur in many contexts, and thus fail to take into account how our empirical, rational account of human irrationality affects their own position. In other words, by making religion the Anti-Science, they effectively disregard a good deal of what science currently tells us about religion.
Jim Lippard: “I haven’t seen or heard Dawkins say anything like that–I certainly disagree with that view.” Actually, it’s right in The God Delusion itself.
Swami Lev, get real. You are misstating Dawkins so grossly that it’s not worth getting into detail. Remember the religious guy who fell off a cliff, yet barely hanging onto a limb called up to his friend for help. The friend asks, “Would you like me to pray”? To which the religious guy says, “I’d prefer a rope”.
#49: I have commented on Stenger here. He at least makes sure that he restricts his attack to actual and specific religious doctrines.
And what evidence do you have for your claims, Lev? I certainly have ammunition against Jim Lippard’s claim that “it’s truth that is the closest thing to sacred for Dawkins,” such as Dawkins’ distortions on the Founding Fathers or his straw man of Thomas Aquinas’ fourth way (which he didn’t even need to make since the real faults of the fourth way are enough to knock it down), and that’s only a partial list. So far, I can’t see anything to justify how Dawkins is masochistic.
And what evidence do you have for your claims, Lev? I certainly have ammunition against Jim Lippard’s claim that “it’s truth that is the closest thing to sacred for Dawkins,” such as Dawkins’ distortions on the Founding Fathers or his straw man of Thomas Aquinas’ fourth way (which he didn’t even need to make since the real faults of the fourth way are enough to knock it down), and that’s only a partial list. So far, I can’t see anything to justify how Dawkins is masochistic.
And what evidence do you have for your claims, Lev? I certainly have ammunition against Jim Lippard’s claim that “it’s truth that is the closest thing to sacred for Dawkins,” such as Dawkins’ distortions on the Founding Fathers or his straw man of Thomas Aquinas’ fourth way (which he didn’t even need to make since the real faults of the fourth way are enough to knock it down), and that’s only a partial list. So far, I can’t see anything to justify how Dawkins is masochistic.
And what evidence do you have for your claims, Lev? I certainly have ammunition against Jim Lippard’s claim that “it’s truth that is the closest thing to sacred for Dawkins,” such as Dawkins’ distortions on the Founding Fathers or his straw man of Thomas Aquinas’ fourth way (which he didn’t even need to make since the real faults of the fourth way are enough to knock it down), and that’s only a partial list. So far, I can’t see anything to justify how Dawkins is masochistic.
C.W. – Save it for the church. You will die. There is no evidence for anything but the natural world. Religion is false, people who believe in superbeings are wrong to do so, based on logical conclusions derived from the preponderence of the evidence. Dawkins doesn’t villify others (meaning religious people, he has villified Hitler, Stalin, etc.) He villifies believing in something unsubstantiated by evidence. People are treated everyday for their mental delusions. When the delusions result in a certain degree of harm to the rest of society, the delusional may be held against their will, either in a mental facility or a prison, depending on what they’ve done. Nothing new about that. We all have the right to be wrong, but we don’t have the right to hurt society by striving to be wrong.
C.W. – Save it for the church. You will die. There is no evidence for anything but the natural world. Religion is false, people who believe in superbeings are wrong to do so, based on logical conclusions derived from the preponderence of the evidence. Dawkins doesn’t villify others (meaning religious people, he has villified Hitler, Stalin, etc.) He villifies believing in something unsubstantiated by evidence. People are treated everyday for their mental delusions. When the delusions result in a certain degree of harm to the rest of society, the delusional may be held against their will, either in a mental facility or a prison, depending on what they’ve done. Nothing new about that. We all have the right to be wrong, but we don’t have the right to hurt society by striving to be wrong.
Lev: “it has been a long-standing observation of mine that Rev. Dawkins often compares himself to Jesus” Then you should be able to cite an example of this.
Swami Lev: Here is a link to his store: http://richarddawkins.net/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1&sort=20a&page=1 No such garments. Are you that delusional or just dishonest?
“Are you that delusional or just dishonest?” Neither, GBruno. http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
Swami Lev – My question stands, “Are you that delusional or just dishonest”? Where in that article does Dawkins propose that his acolytes where that T-shirt? Paiwan – what does “love” have to do with atheism? I think you are crazy. What about all the atheist babies in the Scandinavian countries who don’t die and don’t become monsters. Oh sorry, those are facts, and you don’t like those. Not only are their cousins apes, but they are too, just like me and you. Banana?
Swami Lev – My question stands, “Are you that delusional or just dishonest”? Where in that article does Dawkins propose that his acolytes where that T-shirt? Paiwan – what does “love” have to do with atheism? I think you are crazy. What about all the atheist babies in the Scandinavian countries who don’t die and don’t become monsters. Oh sorry, those are facts, and you don’t like those. Not only are their cousins apes, but they are too, just like me and you. Banana?
Swami Lev – My question stands, “Are you that delusional or just dishonest”? Where in that article does Dawkins propose that his acolytes where that T-shirt? Paiwan – what does “love” have to do with atheism? I think you are crazy. What about all the atheist babies in the Scandinavian countries who don’t die and don’t become monsters. Oh sorry, those are facts, and you don’t like those. Not only are their cousins apes, but they are too, just like me and you. Banana?
C.W. – I’ve read the TGD and there’s little villifying of people, mostly ideas. There is no evidence for anything except the natural world, if you have some you would win a Nobel Prize, otherwise you just have rhetoric. I agree with you, that if someone doesn’t act on his beliefs in a way that harms society, then society has no role in addressing them. But in reality, that’s not the way it plays out very often. Any time that non-evidenced based opinions are proposed as equals to evidence-based opinions in the public arena, the society has the potential for being harmed. Creationism, stem cell research, autism & vaccines, global warming “controversy”, gay rights, and on and on. If I had an ego, I wouldn’t be on this blog.
If we demonise the God of the Old Testament You mean, like presenting Him in a worse light than the Old Testament does? Is that even possible? Considering the god of OT is practically a demon to begin with.
If we demonise the God of the Old Testament You mean, like presenting Him in a worse light than the Old Testament does? Is that even possible? Considering the god of OT is practically a demon to begin with.
I’ve been going around with the True Non-Believers over at Larry’s place about the incongruity of the righteous indignation displayed by them about religion and believers, when they necessarily deny absolutist moral codes, a point raised by John Haught: http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4497 While I think Haught is wrong about atheism necessarily resulting in nihilism, I think he’s right about the failure of the most-recently-famous-atheists (I wouldn’t want to hurt their feelings by calling them “New Atheists,” given how considerate they are of others) to think through their moral positions.
Paiwan – I hope you will seek treatment when it becomes available. Here is an evolutionary explanation for “love”: http://www.percepp.com/lovempat.htm Kierkegaard wasn’t bad, his religious father was. There was no world wide flood. That is a delusion.
Nonsense. I’m in a bit of a rush, but I’ll just bring up a few points: ‘…no matter what other beliefs an intelligent person may hold, so long as they accept the importance of science and the need for a secular society…’ First of all, Dawkins’ point is that if you accept the importance of science, you shouldn’t believe in the supernatural. Second, the reason he wrote The God Delusion is that so many religion people don’t accept the importance of science or the need for a secular society! How could you have missed this? ‘What I most came away with was that he sets it up that one simply cannot understand the existence of religion…’ Well, perhaps you’ve misunderstood. He devotes an entire chapter of The God Delusion to attempting to explain the existence of religion. Did you miss this too? ‘Now Dawkins is fond of miracles. He has said that evolution begins with the first replicator, ignoring the fact that replication systems are complicated things that cannot appear, as it were, by fiat. It’s a scientific miracle as he presents it [I believe there is a better, evolutionary, account of replication, which Dawkins cannot, because for him replication is the sine qua non, the necessary precondition for evolution].’ This is total, utter crap as well. Have you read The Blind Watchmaker? In it, Dawkins goes into detail about Cairns-Smith’s Clay Theory, which is as much of an evolutionary account of replicator production as I’ve ever heard. You really haven’t been paying attention. To describe Dawkins’ ideas as a ‘quasi-religion’ is also sheer lunacy. I normally really enjoy your blog, and I’ll continue enjoying it – but you seem to have been really confused over this one.
Nonsense. I’m in a bit of a rush, but I’ll just bring up a few points: ‘…no matter what other beliefs an intelligent person may hold, so long as they accept the importance of science and the need for a secular society…’ First of all, Dawkins’ point is that if you accept the importance of science, you shouldn’t believe in the supernatural. Second, the reason he wrote The God Delusion is that so many religion people don’t accept the importance of science or the need for a secular society! How could you have missed this? ‘What I most came away with was that he sets it up that one simply cannot understand the existence of religion…’ Well, perhaps you’ve misunderstood. He devotes an entire chapter of The God Delusion to attempting to explain the existence of religion. Did you miss this too? ‘Now Dawkins is fond of miracles. He has said that evolution begins with the first replicator, ignoring the fact that replication systems are complicated things that cannot appear, as it were, by fiat. It’s a scientific miracle as he presents it [I believe there is a better, evolutionary, account of replication, which Dawkins cannot, because for him replication is the sine qua non, the necessary precondition for evolution].’ This is total, utter crap as well. Have you read The Blind Watchmaker? In it, Dawkins goes into detail about Cairns-Smith’s Clay Theory, which is as much of an evolutionary account of replicator production as I’ve ever heard. You really haven’t been paying attention. To describe Dawkins’ ideas as a ‘quasi-religion’ is also sheer lunacy. I normally really enjoy your blog, and I’ll continue enjoying it – but you seem to have been really confused over this one.
I noted with interest that he seems to have abandoned his claim that an agnostic is somebody who has an evenly balanced probability assessment of the existence of God, which is total crap. But he failed to say if that meant he now accepts that while atheists and theists alike are making knowledge claims, agnostics simply aren’t. I doubt it. How do you define a ‘knowledge claim,’ out of interest?
I noted with interest that he seems to have abandoned his claim that an agnostic is somebody who has an evenly balanced probability assessment of the existence of God, which is total crap. But he failed to say if that meant he now accepts that while atheists and theists alike are making knowledge claims, agnostics simply aren’t. I doubt it. How do you define a ‘knowledge claim,’ out of interest?
John, I can only speak for myself, but in your closing you make the case that those of us who post the Scarlet A on our sites are doing so to demonstrate our Superiority. Yours is a claim based on a generalization, and not accurate at least in my case. It is to tell people that I am not afraid of being known as an atheist. That is it. Are you demomising those of us in the Out Campaign?
Excellent post, John. I’m always astounded by the huge presuppositions Dawkins makes, which he just assumes are self-evident and require no further discussion. Which, as you point out, is the mark of a faith-based movement.
John Wilkins: “As so often, those who reject the idea that Dawkins is trying (not the first to do so) to start a quasireligion demonstrate by their indignation at such a critique of their Hero the very thing suggested.” Alexandra: “So anyone who disagrees with you just proves your point. Well, isn’t that just special?” Depends. There’s indignation and indignation. If one witnesses the kind of indignation where there is much pounding of the table, frothing at the mouth, or responding to a straw man version of the accusation that triggered the indignation, then that might point to Wilkins’ accusations about a quasi-religion being reasonable. I can think of at least one partisan of Dawkins who has displayed the sort of distortions of fact that one sees in religious zealots. Bad had pointed out his recent mangled reading of an Obama speech (and I can even think of a certain, ahem, embellishment of the facts that he hasn’t corrected in over a year).
John Wilkins: “As so often, those who reject the idea that Dawkins is trying (not the first to do so) to start a quasireligion demonstrate by their indignation at such a critique of their Hero the very thing suggested.” Alexandra: “So anyone who disagrees with you just proves your point. Well, isn’t that just special?” Depends. There’s indignation and indignation. If one witnesses the kind of indignation where there is much pounding of the table, frothing at the mouth, or responding to a straw man version of the accusation that triggered the indignation, then that might point to Wilkins’ accusations about a quasi-religion being reasonable. I can think of at least one partisan of Dawkins who has displayed the sort of distortions of fact that one sees in religious zealots. Bad had pointed out his recent mangled reading of an Obama speech (and I can even think of a certain, ahem, embellishment of the facts that he hasn’t corrected in over a year).
… in your closing you make the case that those of us who post the Scarlet A on our sites are doing so to demonstrate our Superiority No, John was quite specific that he was taking about “the rhetorical polemics of Richard Dawkins,” not making a claim about all atheists. If, as you say, it doesn’t apply in your case, then John’s objection does not apply to you. It might be well to remember not to lump all religionists into one group either.
Martin: I cannot speak for John Wilkins, but traditionally, atheists are those who claim to “know god does not exist” whereas agnostics are those who claim to “lack a belief in a god”. So using those traditional uses, atheists are making claims about their knowledge whereas agnostics are making claims about their beliefs. Of course atheism can also be defined as “without theism” which does not necessarily imply a knowledge claim, and agnostics can vary between those who claim there simply isn’t good evidence for a religious belief to those who claim religious views are inherently unknowable.
What I think is a far more interesting question is whether it is actually possible to remain entirely pragmatic and consistent in ones views? I simply don’t believe that any of us “do not care” what other people think or how they act, as long as they are not harming others. We may not care about a particular issue, but I am skeptical about such wide-ranging claims. You would really have to define harm, first and foremost, and then find a consistent method of measuring it and quantifying whether we are justified to not be bothered by it. Do you believe that people should be allowed to harm themselves, for instance, and how should we measure this, consistently and fairly? It really does require some sort of bias, in my opinion. You would need a fair amount of faith in “free will” to not care what people do, so long as they accept the importance of science and the need for a secular society. I’m not sure that we can know for sure whether beliefs are harmful, either to the individual or society as a whole, and whether we are justified in speaking out against that, but that really does work both ways, does it not? And how would you show that accepting science and secularism is more justified than having concern about religious belief? Ah, its all about personal preference, really, isn’t it? While I agree that Dawkins over-stretches and gets things wrong, I am yet to be convinced that a pragmatic approach has ever affected real and lasting change in a society, especially when there are a large number of people who are determined to do as much damage as possible (as we would see it, of course). If anything, the approach in most countries seems to be moving towards sensationalism, in all areas. I really despise it, to be honest, but I am at least willing to accept that it is the reality, and that those who want to make a difference may sometimes have to be willing to work within the confines of that reality, as opposed to what we would all wish the reality to be. As long as people are consistent in complaining about both sides I guess that you can get away with it, but we also must recognize that even those who hold benign and liberal views are benefiting from the work of the more zealous, on both sides. It’s nice to not have to get your hands dirty, of course, but none of us would presumably complain about the amount of people that Dawkins has motivated to support science and secularism? Again, if he has motivated more than another person, overall, are we justified in criticizing the other? Of course, you can say that he has also alienated many people, but then we are really at a stalemate, talking about personal experience again. Many secular philosophers, by the way, have attempt to reclassify Atheism as an absence of belief in deities. That is why I would call myself an Agnostic (can’t know, don’t particularly care) Atheist (live my life as if there are no gods). You can call me what you like, though.
What I think is a far more interesting question is whether it is actually possible to remain entirely pragmatic and consistent in ones views? I simply don’t believe that any of us “do not care” what other people think or how they act, as long as they are not harming others. We may not care about a particular issue, but I am skeptical about such wide-ranging claims. You would really have to define harm, first and foremost, and then find a consistent method of measuring it and quantifying whether we are justified to not be bothered by it. Do you believe that people should be allowed to harm themselves, for instance, and how should we measure this, consistently and fairly? It really does require some sort of bias, in my opinion. You would need a fair amount of faith in “free will” to not care what people do, so long as they accept the importance of science and the need for a secular society. I’m not sure that we can know for sure whether beliefs are harmful, either to the individual or society as a whole, and whether we are justified in speaking out against that, but that really does work both ways, does it not? And how would you show that accepting science and secularism is more justified than having concern about religious belief? Ah, its all about personal preference, really, isn’t it? While I agree that Dawkins over-stretches and gets things wrong, I am yet to be convinced that a pragmatic approach has ever affected real and lasting change in a society, especially when there are a large number of people who are determined to do as much damage as possible (as we would see it, of course). If anything, the approach in most countries seems to be moving towards sensationalism, in all areas. I really despise it, to be honest, but I am at least willing to accept that it is the reality, and that those who want to make a difference may sometimes have to be willing to work within the confines of that reality, as opposed to what we would all wish the reality to be. As long as people are consistent in complaining about both sides I guess that you can get away with it, but we also must recognize that even those who hold benign and liberal views are benefiting from the work of the more zealous, on both sides. It’s nice to not have to get your hands dirty, of course, but none of us would presumably complain about the amount of people that Dawkins has motivated to support science and secularism? Again, if he has motivated more than another person, overall, are we justified in criticizing the other? Of course, you can say that he has also alienated many people, but then we are really at a stalemate, talking about personal experience again. Many secular philosophers, by the way, have attempt to reclassify Atheism as an absence of belief in deities. That is why I would call myself an Agnostic (can’t know, don’t particularly care) Atheist (live my life as if there are no gods). You can call me what you like, though.
….Again, if he has motivated more than another person, overall, are we justified in criticizing the other? Of course, you can say that he has also alienated many people, but then we are really at a stalemate, talking about personal experience again…. Posted by: Damian The actions of Dawkins have suprised and saddened me, his books (after Gould’s) expailned evolutionary theory rather well. I still prefer Gould as he was the better writer and less seemingly driven by his own importance. Defending science is one thing, creating enemies out of possible allies is another thing altogether. Dawkins, in my opinion, is creating enemies for Science while trying to evangelise his own beliefs using his Scientific credentials as his authority and to buttress his claims to speak for Science. He may be incredulous about religious beliefs and find their probability low (arguement from incredulity?) but to insult those who don’t agree with his beliefs and urge others to do the same seems silly to me; unless his aims are other than defending Science. Luckilly for me, I didn’t need Dawkins and his ilk to tell me what Science is & isn’t; if I did then Science would very likely have lost a supporter.
….Again, if he has motivated more than another person, overall, are we justified in criticizing the other? Of course, you can say that he has also alienated many people, but then we are really at a stalemate, talking about personal experience again…. Posted by: Damian The actions of Dawkins have suprised and saddened me, his books (after Gould’s) expailned evolutionary theory rather well. I still prefer Gould as he was the better writer and less seemingly driven by his own importance. Defending science is one thing, creating enemies out of possible allies is another thing altogether. Dawkins, in my opinion, is creating enemies for Science while trying to evangelise his own beliefs using his Scientific credentials as his authority and to buttress his claims to speak for Science. He may be incredulous about religious beliefs and find their probability low (arguement from incredulity?) but to insult those who don’t agree with his beliefs and urge others to do the same seems silly to me; unless his aims are other than defending Science. Luckilly for me, I didn’t need Dawkins and his ilk to tell me what Science is & isn’t; if I did then Science would very likely have lost a supporter.
….Again, if he has motivated more than another person, overall, are we justified in criticizing the other? Of course, you can say that he has also alienated many people, but then we are really at a stalemate, talking about personal experience again…. Posted by: Damian The actions of Dawkins have suprised and saddened me, his books (after Gould’s) expailned evolutionary theory rather well. I still prefer Gould as he was the better writer and less seemingly driven by his own importance. Defending science is one thing, creating enemies out of possible allies is another thing altogether. Dawkins, in my opinion, is creating enemies for Science while trying to evangelise his own beliefs using his Scientific credentials as his authority and to buttress his claims to speak for Science. He may be incredulous about religious beliefs and find their probability low (arguement from incredulity?) but to insult those who don’t agree with his beliefs and urge others to do the same seems silly to me; unless his aims are other than defending Science. Luckilly for me, I didn’t need Dawkins and his ilk to tell me what Science is & isn’t; if I did then Science would very likely have lost a supporter.
….Again, if he has motivated more than another person, overall, are we justified in criticizing the other? Of course, you can say that he has also alienated many people, but then we are really at a stalemate, talking about personal experience again…. Posted by: Damian The actions of Dawkins have suprised and saddened me, his books (after Gould’s) expailned evolutionary theory rather well. I still prefer Gould as he was the better writer and less seemingly driven by his own importance. Defending science is one thing, creating enemies out of possible allies is another thing altogether. Dawkins, in my opinion, is creating enemies for Science while trying to evangelise his own beliefs using his Scientific credentials as his authority and to buttress his claims to speak for Science. He may be incredulous about religious beliefs and find their probability low (arguement from incredulity?) but to insult those who don’t agree with his beliefs and urge others to do the same seems silly to me; unless his aims are other than defending Science. Luckilly for me, I didn’t need Dawkins and his ilk to tell me what Science is & isn’t; if I did then Science would very likely have lost a supporter.
….Again, if he has motivated more than another person, overall, are we justified in criticizing the other? Of course, you can say that he has also alienated many people, but then we are really at a stalemate, talking about personal experience again…. Posted by: Damian The actions of Dawkins have suprised and saddened me, his books (after Gould’s) expailned evolutionary theory rather well. I still prefer Gould as he was the better writer and less seemingly driven by his own importance. Defending science is one thing, creating enemies out of possible allies is another thing altogether. Dawkins, in my opinion, is creating enemies for Science while trying to evangelise his own beliefs using his Scientific credentials as his authority and to buttress his claims to speak for Science. He may be incredulous about religious beliefs and find their probability low (arguement from incredulity?) but to insult those who don’t agree with his beliefs and urge others to do the same seems silly to me; unless his aims are other than defending Science. Luckilly for me, I didn’t need Dawkins and his ilk to tell me what Science is & isn’t; if I did then Science would very likely have lost a supporter.
Jim Lippard: “Do you have a page reference?” pp. 66-9 Jim Lippard: “I was reporting what Dawkins said about his own position.” Fair enough, but I’d say that what Dawkins said about his own position is belied by his own treatment of the facts. For Bad: Offhand, I’d say the real difference between those who insist on calling themselves agnostics and those who accept the atheist label is that those who call themselves atheists think, “Well, I act as if there is no God, so I might as well call myself an atheist,” while the agnostics put far more emphasis on the issue of certainty and aren’t comfortable about giving even the appearance of a certain answer to hazy propositions like God’s existence.
Jim Lippard: “Do you have a page reference?” pp. 66-9 Jim Lippard: “I was reporting what Dawkins said about his own position.” Fair enough, but I’d say that what Dawkins said about his own position is belied by his own treatment of the facts. For Bad: Offhand, I’d say the real difference between those who insist on calling themselves agnostics and those who accept the atheist label is that those who call themselves atheists think, “Well, I act as if there is no God, so I might as well call myself an atheist,” while the agnostics put far more emphasis on the issue of certainty and aren’t comfortable about giving even the appearance of a certain answer to hazy propositions like God’s existence.
Jim Lippard: “Do you have a page reference?” pp. 66-9 Jim Lippard: “I was reporting what Dawkins said about his own position.” Fair enough, but I’d say that what Dawkins said about his own position is belied by his own treatment of the facts. For Bad: Offhand, I’d say the real difference between those who insist on calling themselves agnostics and those who accept the atheist label is that those who call themselves atheists think, “Well, I act as if there is no God, so I might as well call myself an atheist,” while the agnostics put far more emphasis on the issue of certainty and aren’t comfortable about giving even the appearance of a certain answer to hazy propositions like God’s existence.
But he failed to say if that meant he now accepts that while atheists and theists alike are making knowledge claims, agnostics simply aren’t. But that is not so. Neither atheists nor theists make knowledge claims any more than agnostics do. Agnosticism and theism are beliefs; atheism is a nonbelief ? neither beliefs nor nonbeliefs involve knowledge claims.
Defending science is one thing, creating enemies out of possible allies is another thing altogether. Dawkins, in my opinion, is creating enemies for Science while trying to evangelise his own beliefs using his Scientific credentials as his authority and to buttress his claims to speak for Science. He may be incredulous about religious beliefs and find their probability low (arguement from incredulity?) but to insult those who don’t agree with his beliefs and urge others to do the same seems silly to me; unless his aims are other than defending Science. While I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you, it does piss me off slightly that so many people (seem) to think that it is perfectly natural that we have cut down half of the worlds rain forests so that religious people can all indulge in their activities, and yet, when those who don’t believe in deities decide that it might be useful to provide some counterbalance to that, many people are offended by it, all of a sudden. It reminds me of one of the criticism’s that I have read of those of a liberal persuasion (of which I could be included, though I don’t really label myself, politically). I do think that there is a tendency for some people to, on the one hand, rail against a particular view with a passion, while not being entirely consistent when considering an opposing position, for fear of offending, and it is often for reasons that are entirely patronizing, as well. Now, that could rightly be claimed of Dawkins, also, but it could really be claimed of all of us, in my opinion. I don’t think that Dawkins claims to be speaking for science, to be honest, and he has said that he is willing to accept that he may be making it more difficult for people to win some of the battles against creationism. But would you also accept that the softly, softly approach, while putting out individual fires quite well, has not exactly been very successful in its attempt to turn the US in to a more scientifically literate and secular society? If anything, there is more fundamentalism in both the US and the rest of the world than ever before. I guess that I just don’t see how anyone can think that Dawkins is obligated to agree with those who think that the approach has been working. He clearly isn’t. And, I rather think that some people will be offended regardless of what you do, and that it really isn’t worth worrying about. If a person is so easy to alienate, simply by writing a book that opposes their religious views, I am not convinced that they are worth relying on in the first place. There have been something like 15 books written in opposition to the “new Atheists”, and yet, I simply can’t imagine that Dawkins would be so offended by that, that he wouldn’t work with each and every one of those people to defend science. We really should be defending freedom of speech, at all costs, and not the freedom to be offended, in my opinion.
We dislike it because no matter what other beliefs an intelligent person may hold, so long as they accept the importance of science and the need for a secular society, we simply do not care if they also like the taste of ear wax, having sex with trees, or believing in a deity or two. Unfortunately there’s a negative correlation between valuing science and the need for a secular society and “believing in a diety or two”. And you didn’t just whip out the ol’ “atheism is just another religion” canard, did you?
We dislike it because no matter what other beliefs an intelligent person may hold, so long as they accept the importance of science and the need for a secular society, we simply do not care if they also like the taste of ear wax, having sex with trees, or believing in a deity or two. Unfortunately there’s a negative correlation between valuing science and the need for a secular society and “believing in a diety or two”. And you didn’t just whip out the ol’ “atheism is just another religion” canard, did you?
The OT God would be just fine if he stayed back there — an ancient Early Iron Age tribal deity, just like many others. No one nowadays would bother to rail against him any more than anyone wastes breath demonising the capricious Greek gods: he’d be just another historical curiosity. But in fact, YWHW/El — in all his vengeful, spiteful, blood-thirsty glory — is still the God worshipped by far too many people, many of whom are otherwise quite decent and civilized. I think it’s worth asking those people to take a long hard look at the kind of deity they tolerate, or are having pushed on them from certain pulpits.
First of all, Dawkins’ point is that if you accept the importance of science, you shouldn’t believe in the supernatural Not only do I accept the importance of science I spend a very large part of my waking hours, and even some of my sleeping ones, studying, thinking about and trying to untangle and understand its history (yes I really do dream about my work!) but who the fuck is Dawkins to tell me or anybody else for that matter what I should or shouldn’t believe? Excellent post by the way Mr Wilkins.
First of all, Dawkins’ point is that if you accept the importance of science, you shouldn’t believe in the supernatural Not only do I accept the importance of science I spend a very large part of my waking hours, and even some of my sleeping ones, studying, thinking about and trying to untangle and understand its history (yes I really do dream about my work!) but who the fuck is Dawkins to tell me or anybody else for that matter what I should or shouldn’t believe? Excellent post by the way Mr Wilkins.
Bad: “This ‘might as well’ implies that non-believers should just go ahead and assume that not believing requires some affirmative anti-god position.” Not really. That’s certainly not what Russell indicated in his essay “Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?,” where he indicated that while “agnostic” might be the more technically correct description of his beliefs, but that “atheist” is the better term for conveying the gist of his beliefs to the man on the street. Bad: “Again, this would make sense only if you defined atheism such that it was an expression of certainty.” Not quite. Rather, it is that those who call themselves atheists aren’t as hung up on the certainty issue as those who call insist on calling themselves agnostics are. Bad: “And again, the real issue here should be having a clear, consistent, and complete taxonomy of positions, to minimize confusion and equivocation.” I think we are talking at cross-purposes here. I’m proposing an answer as to why some choose to identify themselves atheists or agnostics. Also, attempting to impose a descriptor on someone who won’t accept it isn’t going to minimize confusion.
As so often, those who reject the idea that Dawkins is trying (not the first to do so) to start a quasireligion demonstrate by their indignation at such a critique of their Hero the very thing suggested. No, I don’t think atheism is a religion, or need be. It is simply a knowledge claim that there is no God or gods. As a knowledge claim it need not be based on certainty, but it is based on warrant. Agnostics, as I have interminably argued before, hold that at least some of these knowledge claims are unwarranted. Dawkins does a nice end run around those claims by asserting (but not sticking to it) that he’s not interested in these “pantheist” gods (and it’s “panentheism, Richard; at least get the terminology right and stop your strawmanning of these views), but then he asserts that all religion is to be rejected. It goes one way or the other – ether you are arguing against all deities, or you aren’t. You cannot isolate yourself from critiquing some respectable (and adhered to) views, and thens ay that you have shown that all religion is somehow irrational. A knowledge claim is just the assertion that one has, to some degree of certainty, knowledge that things are or are not. Atheists say they have warrant for holding there are no gods. Agnostics say that, no matter what they might think about Thor, teapots in orbit, and so forth, there are at least some views one is neither warranted to assert the truth of, nor deny it. I don’t like intellectual banners calling the faithful to rally beneath them. Dawkins sets up several.
As so often, those who reject the idea that Dawkins is trying (not the first to do so) to start a quasireligion demonstrate by their indignation at such a critique of their Hero the very thing suggested. No, I don’t think atheism is a religion, or need be. It is simply a knowledge claim that there is no God or gods. As a knowledge claim it need not be based on certainty, but it is based on warrant. Agnostics, as I have interminably argued before, hold that at least some of these knowledge claims are unwarranted. Dawkins does a nice end run around those claims by asserting (but not sticking to it) that he’s not interested in these “pantheist” gods (and it’s “panentheism, Richard; at least get the terminology right and stop your strawmanning of these views), but then he asserts that all religion is to be rejected. It goes one way or the other – ether you are arguing against all deities, or you aren’t. You cannot isolate yourself from critiquing some respectable (and adhered to) views, and thens ay that you have shown that all religion is somehow irrational. A knowledge claim is just the assertion that one has, to some degree of certainty, knowledge that things are or are not. Atheists say they have warrant for holding there are no gods. Agnostics say that, no matter what they might think about Thor, teapots in orbit, and so forth, there are at least some views one is neither warranted to assert the truth of, nor deny it. I don’t like intellectual banners calling the faithful to rally beneath them. Dawkins sets up several.
Stuart Richie wrote: First of all, Dawkins’ point is that if you accept the importance of science, you shouldn’t believe in the supernatural. Second, the reason he wrote The God Delusion is that so many religion people don’t accept the importance of science or the need for a secular society! How could you have missed this? And that position itself is utterly unsupportable by science, and it’s why Dawkins and the others in the latest Hate All Religion Mantra Movement have fallen off the wagon. The fact is that I agree that if you cannot provide a test, some means of modeling an alleged phenomona and some method of falsifying it, there’s no reason at all to accept its existence. That being said, the nature of many supernatural claims is such that, whether designed to be that way or not, they cannot be measured or dismissed by empirical means. This whole culture war Dawkins is trying to start is a sort of evangelicalism. Quite frankly, I don’t give a damn whether the guy next to me is Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim. As long, as John says, he accepts the secular society we both live in and isn’t out to destroy science in favor of his own beliefs, then there’s no quarrel, beyond perhaps the sort of cheap coffee shop banter. Sitting around and mocking other peoples’ beliefs for no better reason than to make your own worldview look better to me is the most smug, pointless and rude of activities. This isn’t about going after Creationists and IDers. This is about jerking chains in a psychic masturbatory process. I have about as much interest in listening to Dawkins spout off some anti-theistic line as I do in listening to some Evangelical Preacher spew rhetoric about the evils of secularism. In both cases they’re missing the point. Oh, and I am a full-blown atheist.
Stuart Richie wrote: First of all, Dawkins’ point is that if you accept the importance of science, you shouldn’t believe in the supernatural. Second, the reason he wrote The God Delusion is that so many religion people don’t accept the importance of science or the need for a secular society! How could you have missed this? And that position itself is utterly unsupportable by science, and it’s why Dawkins and the others in the latest Hate All Religion Mantra Movement have fallen off the wagon. The fact is that I agree that if you cannot provide a test, some means of modeling an alleged phenomona and some method of falsifying it, there’s no reason at all to accept its existence. That being said, the nature of many supernatural claims is such that, whether designed to be that way or not, they cannot be measured or dismissed by empirical means. This whole culture war Dawkins is trying to start is a sort of evangelicalism. Quite frankly, I don’t give a damn whether the guy next to me is Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim. As long, as John says, he accepts the secular society we both live in and isn’t out to destroy science in favor of his own beliefs, then there’s no quarrel, beyond perhaps the sort of cheap coffee shop banter. Sitting around and mocking other peoples’ beliefs for no better reason than to make your own worldview look better to me is the most smug, pointless and rude of activities. This isn’t about going after Creationists and IDers. This is about jerking chains in a psychic masturbatory process. I have about as much interest in listening to Dawkins spout off some anti-theistic line as I do in listening to some Evangelical Preacher spew rhetoric about the evils of secularism. In both cases they’re missing the point. Oh, and I am a full-blown atheist.
C.W. – We can’t have a society where all beliefs are treated equally. That would be anarchy. Don’t you believe in equal under the law? Do we all have to agree with your viewpoint? Those who fail to accept that their beliefs are not supported by evidence, have to be criticized. What evidence? You mentioned evidence in another blog but didn’t supply any evidence that God doesn’t exist. Scientists, using scientific methods, seek to model the natural world and do a very fine job. If you believe that the material world is all there is no worries, but that belief isn’t science. It is simply a belief. Why should others who believe otherwise be of any concern to you as long as they aren’t anti-science or anti-secular state? Just an aside. Just because someone is unversed in science doesn’t mean that they are anti-science. In fact it is those unversed in science that we should be trying to reach out to and ranting on that Science = Atheism doesn’t help. Especially as it is untrue. And if you would have not supported Science, than please do away with your electricity, your purchased food, your present and future medical care, your automobile, etc. Enjoy your life. Posted by: gbruno Oooo steps back in stunned amazement and horror; give up my car how terrible :o) Shock I’m converted to your ‘rational’ viewpoint-not. I wrote that ‘if I was reliant on Dawkins to tell me what Science was’ as I’m not the case doesn’t arise. The point was that, as an aid in the defence of science, I do not believe that Dawkin’s methodology helps.