|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 9:56 pm Post subject: Dawkins is wrong about believers |
 |
|
I can't abide religious fundamentalists of any sort, be they Christian, Hindu, Muslim or whathaveyou, and lately I've discovered I also detest atheist fundamentalists, especially the sort that sneeringly ridicule believers (some of my best friends are believers - haha) and demand everyone else convert to their growing sect. Damned irritating types.
Hitchens and Dawkins (or perhaps more accurately, their rabid holier-than-thou disciples) have got right up my nose lately. So it was with some amusement I read this article:
Dawkins is wrong about believers
| Quote: |
Richard Dawkins' tactic of ridiculing religion will inspire only hostility among those who feel their worldview to be under attack
I have been an admirer of Richard Dawkins' work since I first read The Selfish Gene some 25 years ago. His now canonic reformulation of the tenets of Darwinian thought, the enormous lucidity of thinking and the ability to present highly complex argument accessibly are exemplary for the spirit of science and enlightenment values.
Yet I have been bothered by an inconsistency in his approach, particularly in the last years since his God Delusion. In this book he basically tries to demonstrate that a) arguments for God's existence and the truth of sacred text of the various monotheistic traditions are invalid; b) arguments that religion makes people more moral are fallacious; and c) religious education is largely noxious and prevents human beings who have been subjected to it from becoming truly free minds.
I happen to agree with him on all three points, but I wonder what he is trying to achieve. He says in a recent post discussed by Andrew Brown that he hopes to convince religious people that haven't given the issue much thought by ridiculing religious belief, and he thinks that this might be a useful way to win them over to the scientific worldview.
Given his deep commitment to science, it somewhat surprises me that in formulating this strategy of ridicule and frontal attack he does not take into account scientific knowledge about the functioning of the human mind. In the last two decades, the discipline of existential experimental psychology has investigated the function that worldviews (whether religious or other) play in the human mind. One of the most important findings is that belief systems, by connecting individuals to a larger whole (a religion, nation, community or an endeavour like science), protect us from the unbearable anxiety generated by awareness of our own mortality. This holds true for all belief systems whether religious or secular.
These results are pertinent to the question of how to deal with the conflict between science and religion. A variety of researchers have produced strong research results demonstrating that when the belief systems that provide humans with meaning and worldview protection are attacked, the result is inevitably that humans dig more deeply into the trenches of their belief systems. The meaning and psychological protection that humans derive from their worldviews is so important to them that they will go to enormous lengths to defend these beliefs against any attack.
This is exactly what has happened in the last decades: the more western secular culture impacted traditional forms of life in all three Abrahamic religions, the more they moved towards fundamentalist versions that vehemently attacked science and western liberalism as decadent and corrupting. If Dawkins' theory were right, the technological superiority of the scientific worldview should have made them feel ridiculous, and hence they should have given up on their belief systems. But the opposite happened: from Wahhabist insistence on purifying Islam from western influence to the frontal attack on evolutionary theory by the American religious right, the fundamentalist backlash has been rather disheartening.
Equally dismaying was the timid way in which secularism, both in Europe and the US, tried to appease religious attacks ranging from Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie to stopping funding of stem-cell research by the Bush administration. Such appeasement only encouraged further attacks.
Within this context there was great value of polemical work like Dawkins' God Delusion, Daniel Dennett's and Christopher Hitchens' salvoes against religion and the fiery insistence of philosophers like Bernard Henri L�vy and Alain Finkielkraut that the western tradition of freedom of thought needed to be defended. I identify strongly with all these works and try to contribute to this effort of rallying the forces of the enlightenment tradition in my own way.
But let us not delude ourselves: the value of these books is to raise the spirits of liberal atheists who had been made to feel that they had no right to fight for their views. These spirited counterattacks certainly succeeded in reestablishing some esprit de corps of those committed to enlightenment values and the scientific worldview. But the primary effect of such aggressive rhetoric is primarily to rally our own side. We should not think that all-out attack on religion will convert anybody. The scientific evidence shows that the opposite is likely to be true.
I am in no way arguing for a return to the timid politically correct tactic of seemingly paying respect to views that are irrational and/or morally repugnant. But I believe that it is of crucial importance to get religious communities, particularly in third world countries, to accept scientific precepts on global problems ranging from the population explosion to the epidemic spread of HIV. In doing so we will have to find ways to convince religious leaders to endorse scientifically established methods of dealing with these issues. The strategy of ridiculing religious belief is very unlikely to achieve this, and may instead increase resistance to science where it is most sorely needed.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I only enforce my atheistic views when people start pushing their religious views upon me.
In any other situation, it simply isn't my business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 10:46 pm Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Richard Dawkins' tactic of ridiculing religion will inspire only hostility among those who feel their worldview to be under attack |
No kidding?
Trying to use rational reasoning to persuade people to abandon religion is like trying to use rational reasoning to persuade someone with paranoid personality disorder to be more trusting of others.
That said, I would say his work still has value, not in its likelihood to persuade any individual religious person to give up their religion on its own, but in adding to an ever growing body of non-religious thought which -- in combination with secularist success at keeping religion out of government -- can lead to a decline in over all participation in religion over time. People are very prone to be more accepting of ideas that they feel many other people around them believe; the more it seems like a large body of people (particularly intelligent people) feel religion has little to credit it (and the less it seems like people around them universally support religion), the more likely any given individual is to give up on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
In my opinion, it's the materialistic scientists and philosophers who are deluded in their identification with matter and rejection of a Supreme Person who is directly and indirectly conscious of everything and everyone.
Of course, dogmatic belief and sectarian spirit are negative, but they stem from materialistic corruption - not pure spirituality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I am in no way arguing for a return to the timid politically correct tactic of seemingly paying respect to views that are irrational and/or morally repugnant. |
you BB are the epitome of the of the PC lefty who pays respect to morally repugnant views of Muslims..
anyway..
Dawkins and Hitchens go too far but after being raised in a Christian family, I really appreciate their cynical attitudes. We should be quite skeptical whenever someone says that God is speaking to them and that we have to listen to them. Every time somebody here tries to tell me how great Islam is or that I should convert I say, "yeah right God told some guy that drinking Beer is forbidden, and women need to be covered, and I'm going to hell if I don't believe in him, and men can marry whom they like but women can't, and that sex outside of marriage pisses God off, and that you can be a muslim but you can't leave Islam under penalty of death, and that people from other religions are going to hell and that apparently God had plenty of time to send messages concerning Maria the Coptic slave girl's sexual relationship with Muhammed, but didn't bother to tell humanity about the existence of bacteria which would have been a lot more useful ..well ..ok yeah sign me right up..."
Also your view that ridicule will only inspire anger is just plain not true. (although quite true among the ignorant, closed minded, and militant). I aksed 3 of my Muslim teachers if it's ok for the state to execute homosexuals. They said "yes"...I said that this was stupid..utterly and totally stupid. I later said that if we were in the states and someone wanted to make a law to legally execute muslims just because they are muslims, then I wouldn't sit down and think about it and try to figure out what the holy friggin bible says...no I'd ridicule that law as nothing but foolish hate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's very balanced and nuanced of you OP.
Have you read any of his books? Have you seen him lecture? Or, no. *beep*, of course you haven't.
| Quote: |
In this book he basically tries to demonstrate that a) arguments for God's existence and the truth of sacred text of the various monotheistic traditions are invalid; b) arguments that religion makes people more moral are fallacious; and c) religious education is largely noxious and prevents human beings who have been subjected to it from becoming truly free minds.
I happen to agree with him on all three points, but I wonder what he is trying to achieve. |
What he's trying to achieve? What a stupid question. Is he supposed to keep it to himself in this word, now, today?
The Guardian will fry your mind.
| Quote: |
| Equally dismaying was the timid way in which secularism, both in Europe and the US, tried to appease religious attacks ranging from Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie to stopping funding of stem-cell research by the Bush administration. Such appeasement only encouraged further attacks. |
"Secularism" isn't appeasing crazy muslims. Relativism is. Obnoxious leftist "radicals" wandering around the world trying to be nuanced and tolerant.
| Quote: |
| Within this context there was great value of polemical work like Dawkins' God Delusion, Daniel Dennett's |
Dan Dennett? The writer of this crap piece very obviously hasn't read a word written by Dennett. Just using guilt by association.
So, who here read any of these books? Sam Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens? I know OTOH read one of them (God is Not Great). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Equally dismaying was the timid way in which secularism, both in Europe and the US, tried to appease religious attacks ranging from Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie to stopping funding of stem-cell research by the Bush administration. Such appeasement only encouraged further attacks. |
Rule #1 of leftist nonsense: if mentioning muslim nutters, throw in a reference to Bush et al to be balanced. Don't want to appear discriminating.
Ok, so, which secularists appeased Bush's attacks on stem-cell research? Find three. Ok, you won't be able to. Secularists opposed it, as did leftist nuts. Nobody supported it outside of religious types.
Meanwhile to this day islam is supported as the king of all victim groups by the relativist left.
This is such a poorly written and argued article. I'd rather just read a fundamentalist defense of their imaginary friend than this limpwrist failed attempt at nuance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't call Dawkins a fundamentalist really. He's very intelligent and soft spoken and does not come across as angry. I'd call Mao or Lenin a fundamentalist. Someone who wants to use the government to re-organize the world and who gives off fiery speeches to acheive their purposes...
Here's Dawkins in another video from the Guardian...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/atheist-bus-campaign-nationwide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
I went to a RD talk at a uni. There were many religious types who showed up to argue with him. He was respectful but firm. They believe absolutely crazy things (organized religion is the king of conspiracy theories) and he told them that, and why. It was a great evening.
But these leftists and nuanced types want to be balanced. RD is right, but he should be more embarrassed or meek about being right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:57 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I can't abide religious fundamentalists of any sort, be they Christian, Hindu, Muslim or whathaveyou, and lately I've discovered I also detest atheist fundamentalists, especially the sort that sneeringly ridicule believers (some of my best friends are believers - haha) and demand everyone else convert to their growing sect. Damned irritating types. |
Big Bird,
I've been an atheist since I was about 13 years old, but I can appreciate what you are saying. I think Dawkins and like-minded individuals are responding to what they perceived as an epidemic of people who assumed their religious beliefs were so true and obviously self-evident that they could ride roughshod over the opinions and beliefs of the nonreligious. I think that is a laudable goal, but one can make the mistake of going to the opposite extreme.
I've only read one of Dawkins's books, and what struck me the most about the God Delusion was, "is this all he has to say?" It didn't seem to be very well-written, at least to me, and he didn't really seem to be saying anything new. Well terribly new. Dawkins feels that religious beliefs should be open to scientific validation along with everything else...a problematic viewpoint at best. I'm an atheist but I think people have the right to their religious beliefs, even if I think the idea is nuts. A recent example:
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/04/26/Hand-of-God-available-on-eBay/UPI-81211240775684/
I think this guy is nuts but it doesn't bother me if he really believes this.
One thing I was rather disappointed with in the God Delusion, however, is that Dawkins completely and deliberately skirts the historical issue of atheistic states that have persecuted religious believers, particularly the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist states. Hundreds of thousands of religious believers were persecuted for their beliefs by "atheists" in the 20th century, and this raises a question of what should be the moral attitude of modern atheists towards religious believers. Unless somebody is hurting themselves or others by adhering too closely to their religion, they should be left alone, IMHO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:14 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
One thing I was rather disappointed with in the God Delusion, however, is that Dawkins completely and deliberately skirts the historical issue of atheistic states that have persecuted religious believers, particularly the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist states. Hundreds of thousands of religious believers were persecuted for their beliefs by "atheists" in the 20th century, and this raises a question of what should be the moral attitude of modern atheists towards religious believers. Unless somebody is hurting themselves or others by adhering too closely to their religion, they should be left alone, IMHO. |
He spent about 30 pages on that topic, or touching on that topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:19 am Post subject: Re: Dawkins is wrong about believers |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| He spent about 30 pages on that topic, or touching on that topic. |
Um...no. He did talk about a number of aspects that he didn't address and specifically why he didn't, which I can understand. Atheism and religion is a very broad topic, and of course he couldn't cover all of it in one book. And in any case Dawkins is not the be-all and end-all of atheism, and I don't expect he should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes he did.
He discussed 1) the violence against "believers" by atheist states and 2) how atheists ought to behave towards believers.
Point 2 is a reoccurring theme throughout the whole book, actually. Point 1 is part of his long, long, long discussion about Mao, Stalin, Hitler and the others. He discusses specifically how religious people were killed for being believers.
I re-read the book last month. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Yes he did.
He discussed 1) the violence against "believers" by atheist states and 2) how atheists ought to behave towards believers.
Point 2 is a reoccurring theme throughout the whole book, actually. Point 1 is part of his long, long, long discussion about Mao, Stalin, Hitler and the others. He discusses specifically how religious people were killed for being believers.
I re-read the book last month. |
What page? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Geez he musta read my email after all.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
