Article here.

Is Dawkins right?

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

I think that he is partially correct, yes. It's part of the point that I've been trying to make in my thread On Belief.

How we believe informs our thinking, and thinking most assuredly informs our actions. Most people are capable of putting such things into perspective, but not all. Many are convinced by their religious beliefs, or convinced by the religious advisers, that "God requires" them to do something, and for some, this is enough to ensure that they will do it.

Consider that recently, the Bishop of Calisle (Anglican, UK), remarked that flooding in central Britain are God's judgment on our immorality. In particular, "The sexual orientation regulations [which give greater rights to gays in Britain] are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a situation where we are liable for God's judgment, which is intended to call us to repentance."

Other disasters, both natural and man-made, have likewise been blamed by otherwise good, believing men, on homosexuals, lesbians, women's liberationists, and others. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and many, many evangelical preachers have all made and/or supported such remarks.
These men sincerely believe(d) what they are/were saying. And their comments, coming from men who hold positions of great moral suasion, must surely go some way towards convincing those who look to them for moral guidance to demand that "those responsible for our misfortunes" should be in some way punished or dealt with, so that God won't hate us anymore. (In fact, how could someone who sincerely believed that God wants them to do something possibly consider not doing it?)

The point is, their beliefs, given their positions of moral suasion, are not private to themselves. They have an impact, and that impact can have very real and very nasty effects in the real world. It is not so very different from the days when the scapegoats were witches, or heretics, or any other people who are different, and who can be turned into objects of hatred in order that the rest of us may become, once again, deserving of divine approval and protection.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Even though I'm not crazy about his style, I have to agree with Dawkins. Both his book, "The God Delusion", and Harris' "The End of Faith", brought up some excellent questions. However, I certainly wouldn't refer to them as the "final answer" by any means. One of the problem with undoubtedly most theists is that they elevate their faith to a "fact". I should know-- I did it most of my life.

Shalom,
Vern

I also agree that a point should be made regarding the dangers of fanatical religion/fundamentalism. However, I disagree that all expressions of/about God fall under this category. I think some of these spokespersons are hurting their cause by statements like these:


If faith were the one and only reason behind 911, why aren't more devote Muslims murderers?



Again, my opinion is that statements like this are an oversimplification and exaggeration. The process he describes (which progresses from an acceptance of God to the destruction of thousands of lives) is supposed to apply to "reasonable" people. So how many reasonable people destroy thousands of lives because they believe in God and/or their scriptures?

Is Dawkins just countering religious bigotry with atheistic bigotry?

Very true. In fact, the suicide bombers are not a very numerous faction in Islam, or any religion. (BTW, far more suicide bombings, world-wide, have been carried out by supporters of the Tamil Tigers aganist the Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka, religion is not a factor in this conflict, and this is constanyl overlooked by the relious=suicide bomber theorists!)

And, if the Muslims were half as dedicated to overthrowing the West and Christendom as the alarmist faction believes, then the World would be hard put to resist a billion or so suicide bombers. Europe would, in the 6 years since 9/11, have been overwhlemed by the large number of Muslims that live there, etc.

Religious extremists are few in number, and likely have been at every period of history. That they get much media exposure is not surprising. Next to sex, nothing sells ad space like a little well planned hysteria.

The real threat to the Western way of life, to freedom of thought and expression, is and always has been those who will do anything to further the interests of the State. (For an interesting perspective on this, how the PATRIOT Act, not the terrorists, poses the biggest threat to America, written by a U.S. State Supreme Court Justice (not a left-winger by any means) check this: http://www.reason.com/news/show/123496.html )





Few, but Dawkins and his ilk seem to feel that making specious comparisons, taking historical events out of context, and cherry picking from "religious: writers makes an argument. It doesn't, it's purely polemic and not even very good or very original polemic. The fact his books are non-fiction best-sellers means very little. "I'm OK; You're OK" was a non-ficiton best seller too, for a couple of years....


On the face of it, Dawkins is a anti-religious biggot, and likely could be prosecuted for hate-speeh here in Canada.

"Be seeing you..."

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

This is one problem that I have with Dawkins. However, he is at least partially correct. There are verses in the Qur'an that advocate violence towards "infidels", those non-Muslems that "occupy" what is considered "Islamic land", and those considered "enemies" of Islam. It is also acceptable under certain circumstances to spread Islam by the sword, as Mohammed did.

And please realize that 9-11 plays out quite differently in the Muslem world than here in the west. According to polls, a majority of Muslems in the Middle East and Indonesia feel that 9-11 was caused by Jews so as Muslems were to be blamed for it. Also, let me also mention that Jews are not allowed in Saudi Arabia (and no Christian church can be built there btw) and certain other Muslem countries. I was reading an article this morning in a Detroit newspaper whereas a woman who was Jewish was not allowed to get off a plane that had developed problems and had to land in an emergency in Saudi Arabia, but all of the other passengers were allowed off.

My point is that we cannot typecast Muslems one way or the other. Like within Judaism and Christianity, there are certain elements in each who use a literalistic view of scripture to authenticate what they are doing. Fortunately, most people do not take that approach. Unfortunately, there are some that do and many others who'll cheer them on.

Shalom,
Vern

I doubt very much the latter is true. Hate speech usually involves intent to harm that goes beyond mere philosophical concepts. Britain also has these laws as well, but no one to my knowledge is seemingly going to press hate-crime charges against Dawkins.

Yes, Dawkins is "anti-religious", although he does pay at least lip-service to the fact that religion also does some good for the individual and the society as well. However, he feels that the bad outweighs the good. Whether he's a "bigot" or not I guess would depend on where one stands. If a theist denounces an atheist, is he/she also a "bigot"? I've seen that happen many more times than the other way around.

Shalom,
Vern

I had to look up the definition of bigot - guess I should know my words before I pick em.


The word "bigotry" might be a little extreme considering the reference to "hatred and intolerance." I can't say that applies to Dawkins and I certainly wouldn't want to pass that kind of judgement on him.

But.... what I do get from his tone and choice of words is the idea that people who believe in God/religion are somehow irrational (silly, of inferior intelligence, etc.) People who reject the idea of God are the ones who have "seen the light" while the rest of us (which is something like 80-90% of the population) just can't seem to grasp reality. Or better yet, we don't want to, because we prefer our little fairytale. It strikes me as poking fun at people in a condescending kind of way because of their beliefs.

Does anyone else get that feeling/sense?

I agree with you, and that's why I mentioned that I was not crazy about his tone. However, realize that atheists and non-theists hear or read similar insults all the time. They are often referred to as "irrational", haven't "seen the light", "can't seem to grasp reality", etc. In a survey of Americans, atheists were considered the group that most people would not vote for President simply because atheists don't believe in a deity and are considered not to have morals. And if we look back in our history, we see that atheists used to be condemned to death or tortured both in Europe and in colonial America (if you get a chance, read a good biography on Thomas Hobbs).

However, I'm not defending Dawkins rhetoric. Without a doubt he lacks tact. And you know what tact is, right? It's the ability to tell a person to go to hell so well that they actually look forward to the trip.

Shalom,
Vern

- you have a great sense of humor, Vern!

I guess no one has a corner on intolerance/prejudice - it seems to come quite naturally to most human egos. And it does seem (my opinion only) that fundamentalist/fanatic Christians and Muslims are the most blatant and hard to fathom. I was just wondering if someone like Dawkins can see that they also have a kind of prejudice. That as subtle as it may be, there's a kind of "holier than thou" attitude. Or maybe an "unholier" than thou.....