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.
… 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. …
Of course, the evolution of the Old Testament is a complex social process, … 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, comfortable. As you say, Richard, simply because a belief makes us comfortable, doesn't mean it is true.
… 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.
Let's repeat and paraphrase: I don't know and don't care if there's a god or a higher power, any more than I care if there's an invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter. 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.
Thinking, respect for other people, rational consistency and acceptance of the measurable aspects of the universe around us: these are a few of the things by which I judge a person, and that person's arguments. Dawkins's record on those measures is fairly poor, at least of late. This isn't about being courtiers, it isn't about shutting anyone up. It's about Dawkins putting himself forward as the representative of science communicators, and of the non-theistic community. And it's about him doing a poor job on both fronts.
Flame on.
- Log in to post comments
The question isn't really whether "there's a god or a higher power", though, is it? The question is always whether Allah exists, or JHV or some other particular god. No one just believes "there's a god or a higher power" there's always more substance to the belief.
It's not atheists versus theists it's atheists versus Christians or atheists versus Muslims or whatever.
Not much to add, but it's nice that some people here don't deify Dawkins and understand that being an atheist doesn't mean hating everything about every religion.
Of course, the biggest loudmouth on the scienceblogs site is a bit too thick to get this message.
Joshua says,
I, on the other hand, care a great deal. It would transform my worldview if I ever discovered evidence of supernatural beings. I think it's one of the most important questions humans have to address. I find it astonishing that you really don't care one way or another.
The word "respect" is subject to abuse. I'm sure there are lots of people you don't respect for very good reasons. Let's not adopt a knee-jerk model of politeness that requires us to "respect" everyone no matter how ridiculous or evil they might be.
Furthermore, let's not confuse "respect" with a way of behaving that avoids confrontation. There are segments of American society who think that open disagreement with someone demonstrates lack of respect. That's certainly not true in my case, nor in the case of Richard Dawkins. There are lots of people I respect even though I enjoy engaging them in heated debates. Dawkins is one of those people and so is John Wilkins.
If you judge a person by their "rational consistency" then you and I, and Richard Dawkins, are on the same side. We all recognize that people like Ken Miller and Francis Collins are seriously deficient in that category. Right?
"It would transform my worldview if I ever discovered evidence of supernatural beings." Setting aside that such evidence cannot exist in the empirical realm, how would it change your worldview? Would you behave differently? Behave the same for different reasons?
As for respect, I think it shows a level of disrespect to go around comparing people to Neville Chamberlain.
And no, I don't think it displays inherent rational inconsistency to think that supernatural beings exist. I do think it displays such an inconsistency to assert that it is scientifically demonstrable that God does or does not exist, a claim Miller and Collins don't make, but which Dawkins does.