Dawkins 'in trouble'

pH

Anyone read Madeleine Bunting's op-ed piece in the Guardian?

Why the intelligent design lobby thanks God for Richard Dawkins

The key argument here is as follows

"Dawkins and Dennett are really dangerous, both at a moral and a legal level." The nub of Ruse's argument is that Darwinism does not lead ineluctably to atheism, and to claim that it does (as Dawkins does) provides the intelligent-design lobby with a legal loophole: "If Darwinism equals atheism then it can't be taught in US schools because of the constitutional separation of church and state. It gives the creationists a legal case. Dawkins and Dennett are handing these people a major tool."

The old chestnut "Atheism is a religion in the same was as not collecting stamps is a hobby" springs to mind.

Full Article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1740391,00.html

For those who find this kind of thing interesting there's a nice rebuttal:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/the_dawkinsdennett_boogeyman.php

The "Br'er Fox" and the briar patch reference just rings true for me!

Dades

Many, many things annoy me reading that article. :mad:

For one the creationist fallacy that Darwinism = atheism.

Also, as you've pointed out, pH, if it were the case that Darwinism was atheism (which it ain't) - atheism is not a religion therefore it doesn't even fall under the realm of "Church".

You get the impression making the above points would be met with fingers in the ears and loud songs of worship. Just be thankful you don't live in the US.

Dawkins, for all his forthright views, has actually done nothing wrong. He hasn't played into anybody's hands. The simple fact is his arguments have been twisted by incorrect and disingenuous classification. There is no defence again that.

Another annoyance is the apparant interchangeablity in the article of the terms "creationism" and "intelligent design". Obviously all creationists believe in intelligent design, but surely many ID'ers don't subscribe to that 'young earth' crap?

pH

Dawkins also does not claim that Darwinism leads to atheism.

He [Dawkins] has said that evolution made atheism intellectually respectable, by providing a natural explanation for a prominent feature of our world, organic life. He has said that religion is a foolish delusion, and on that I agree with him; are we to be denied the privilege of criticizing foolishness? No one claims that science leads inescapably to atheism, since as any idiot can tell, many good scientists are also religious (which, of course, does not make religion good).
from pharyngula (link above)

robindch

> Dawkins also does not claim that Darwinism leads to atheism.

That's as may be, but bear in mind that you're dealing with creationists here (Dembksi et al.), so disagreeable things like facts can simply be pushed off into dark corners to shrivel up and die. Mind you, it's still an interesting twist to see creationists claiming that evolution is an "establishment of religion" and therefore needing to be curtailed at federal level -- the outcome of the trial in Dover must have hurt them pretty bad.

And anyhow, while an understanding of evolution no more leads to atheism than does an understanding of quantum chromodynamics or where rain comes from, I suspect that a well-developed ability to assess facts and establish physical patterns could also lead one to the understanding that religion is simply a human construction, based upon fairly straightforward human needs and perceptions. And that, I think, is one of the reasons why creationists go to such lengths to create this hideous, immoral, pathological beast called "science" -- simply so that they can keep their own ragtag show on the road without too many dissenting voices.

archdukefranz

Richard Dawkins seems more out for himself and booksales than anything else

bus77

The Atheist wrote:

Another annoyance is the apparant interchangeablity in the article of the terms "creationism" and "intelligent design". Obviously all creationists believe in intelligent design, but surely many ID'ers don't subscribe to that 'young earth' crap?

What I'm wondering is how exactly would you go about presenting an ID class?
I'm at a loss at what possible teaching format they have in mind.

Zombrex

bus77 wrote:

What I'm wondering is how exactly would you go about presenting an ID class?
I'm at a loss at what possible teaching format they have in mind.

I have often thought about that. I would wonder what exactly a teacher would say?

I mean the way I was taught biology in leaving cert is that you start with something a cell does, or something happening, like cell division and you work from there, about how it happens, what purpose it serves in a biological sense (ie a new cell), what is going on, theories about how this effects other things

Where do you start with ID? How does it even come up, without of course someone opening a Bible at page 1?

I mean do they seriously expect a science teacher to get up and say "this is so complex it is possible some intelligence designed it to happen like this" ... if I was there the first quiestion would be "what are you basing that on?" ... it is nonsense

Zombrex

archdukefranz wrote:

Richard Dawkins seems more out for himself and booksales than anything else

Who should he be "out" for?

Zillah

Wicknight wrote:

Who should he be "out" for?

Truth and intellectual justice?

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

Truth and intellectual justice?

Justice?

staple

pH wrote:

Dawkins also does not claim that Darwinism leads to atheism.

Dawkins does claim, all the time, that religion is a dangerous delusion, and religious people should acknowledge that truth. I've heard/read it from him many times. This is a description of his Channel 4 documentaries:
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/rootofevil.html

I've never heard him acknowledge any Christian's right to be deluded. Dawkins is extremely interested in going beyond scientific knowledge of zoology and biology and applying what he knows to society and faith, areas that require very different intellectual tools. He approaches the sensitivities of religious belief with all the subtlety of a bunsen burner.

It's implicit in everything he says that scientific knowledge should make us atheists. That may not be the same as saying "darwinism leads to atheism" but that is a pretty subtle difference (maybe not in scientific journals, but Dawkins doesn't stick to scientific journals).

pH

Dawkins does claim, all the time, that religion is a dangerous delusion, and religious people should acknowledge that truth. I've heard/read it from him many times. This is a description of his Channel 4 documentaries:

Yes, but where is Natural Selection, Evolution or 'Darwinism' mentioned? All of the above is true but has nothing to do with natural selection!

I've never heard him acknowledge any Christian's right to be deluded.

Interesting take, I've never heard him say anywhere that people shouldn't be free to practice a religion. I guess his feelings would be similar enough to mine, practice your dogma at home or in your (self-funded) churches and stay well away from the classroom and public institutions.

It's implicit in everything he says that scientific knowledge should make us atheists.

It's implicit in everything he says that there's absolutely no scientific knowledge that should lead us to believe in Sky Gods.

robindch

> I've never heard him acknowledge any Christian's right to be deluded.

I've never heard him deny the right of any person to believe any piece of religious dogma they like -- christianity being just one example of a number of different religions that he shone the spotlight of reason on during the recent C4 series.

> It's implicit in everything he says that scientific knowledge should make
> us atheists.

Not that I've noticed -- could you provide a quote to back up this claim? Though I would concede (as above), that the ability to deal with the world accurately and honestly which he espouses, would lead one to the mild suspicion that religion is nothing more, and nothing less, than a very complex, very interesting, self-propagating cultural construction.

Playboy

robindch wrote:

I've never heard him deny the right of any person to believe any piece of religious dogma they like -- christianity being just one example of a number of different religions that he shone the spotlight of reason on during the recent C4 series.

The spotlight of reason? The 'root of all evil' was a biased propoganda piece.

robindch

> The 'root of all evil' was a biased propoganda piece.

uhhh, for saying that religion causes many people do do bad things and that it's not based upon much more than tradition and the authority that some people assert over others?

archdukefranz

robindch wrote:

> The 'root of all evil' was a biased propoganda piece.

uhhh, for saying that religion causes many people do do bad things and that it's not based upon much more than tradition and the authority that some people assert over others?

root of all evil is a little stronger than religion causes many people to do bad things
And its very much a unilateral approach surely you'll aggree

Zombrex

staple wrote:

Dawkins does claim, all the time, that religion is a dangerous delusion, and religious people should acknowledge that truth.

You are right about the first bit, wrong about the second bit.

Religion is a dangerous delusion, but Dawkins merely points this out. Its up to the rest of us to make up our minds. He isn't forcing anyone to be atheist, though he thinks we all should be.

Playboy

> uhhh, for saying that religion causes many people do do bad things

uhhh, what about the other side of the coin. How about all the good things that religion causes many people to do.

> it's not based upon much more than tradition and the authority that some people assert over others?

In your opinion, which is obviously a very biased one. As I said before 'The Root of all Evil' is a biased propoganda piece. Any decent series would try and deal with the subject impartially. Dawkins used the show to preach his own worldview which is fine in my book but dont try and pass it off as something its not.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Religion is a dangerous delusion, but Dawkins merely points this out.

Merely points this out? Is Dawkins seriously trying to make people believe that the world would be a better place if we all were atheists?. If I remember correctly it was the Jews who were being persecuted in World War 2. What about communism in Russia and China and all the atroicities that were committed? Is atheism not just as dangerous? Hypocrisy anybody?

pH

If I remember correctly it was the Jews who were being persecuted in World War 2. What about communism in Russia and China and all the atroicities that were committed? Is atheism not just as dangerous? Hypocrisy anybody?

It's hard to argue that much evil has ever been done in the name of 'atheism'. There have been very few (if any) massacres or pogroms done solely by non-religous people against the religous.

Communism is not atheism, and to lay its horrors at atheism's door is disingenuous to say the least.

In the same way as not every massacre performed by a religous person or movement can be attributed to the religion, neither can all acts performed by non-religous people be attributed to atheism.

Just in case you still don't get this - take the Rwandan genocide for example, while it was committed primarily by religous people - it was not 'about' religion, and would not be described as a religous massacre. In the same way religion was just something else that got in the way of Communism, the primary motivation was not that of an atheistic movement persecuting the religious.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Merely points this out? Is Dawkins seriously trying to make people believe that the world would be a better place if we all were atheists?. If I remember correctly it was the Jews who were being persecuted in World War 2. What about communism in Russia and China and all the atroicities that were committed?

What about them? The argument there would be non-democracy dictatorships are dangerous. I'm sure Dawkins would agree with that also.

Atheism doesn't replace moral system of religion. What ever moral system the atheist believes in replaces religion.

The point is that if you remove religion this moral system comes from humanity, and as such it is possible to debate, discuss, argue and hopefully improve the moral system, something that isn't as easy to do when the moral system comes from the word of God, and is as such quite ridgid. Or to put it another way, its easy to argue a person is wrong, its a lot harder to argue God is wrong.

Playboy wrote:

Is atheism not just as dangerous? Hypocrisy anybody?

No because atheism isn't a morality/social/legal system. You will have to give me an example of the moral system you would replace religion with first, then I can tell you if it is just as dangerous. Obviously a communist dictorship ala Stalin or Mao would be equally dangerous.

Playboy

pH wrote:

In the same way as not every massacre performed by a religous person or movement can be attributed to the religion, neither can all acts performed by non-religous people be attributed to atheism.

This was my point. To name a show 'A Root of all Evil' and to preach about the dangers of religion in the way he does is disingenuous. Human history is full of evil and horror. Religion is an excuse not a reason.

pH wrote:

Just in case you still don't get this - take the Rwandan genocide for example, while it was committed primarily by religous people - it was not 'about' religion, and would not be described as a religous massacre. In the same way religion was just something else that got in the way of Communism, the primary motivation was not that of an atheistic movement persecuting the religious.

Exactly. So in what instance can you blame any kind of evil solely on religion? Is it all not wrapped up in a social and poltical context along with the individual psychology of the people involved? Is religion the root cause of the problems in Northern Ireland or does it really go much deeper than that? Can the same not be said for any kind of religious conflict in any part of the world?

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

The point is that if you remove religion this moral system comes from humanity, and as such it is possible to debate, discuss, argue and hopefully improve the moral system, something that isn't as easy to do when the moral system comes from the word of God, and is as such quite ridgid. Or to put it another way, its easy to argue a person is wrong, its a lot harder to argue God is wrong.

How do you improve a moral system? Morality is highly subjective. Who is Dawkins to say that his morality is superior to that of any religion?

Wicknight wrote:

No because atheism isn't a morality/social/legal system. You will have to give me an example of the moral system you would replace religion with first, then I can tell you if it is just as dangerous. Obviously a communist dictorship ala Stalin or Mao would be equally dangerous.

So what is the point? Preach atheism but don't try and fill void religion leaves? Leave that to whatever political system we find ourselves living under? How do we arrive at a universal morality that is superior to all others?

Rev Hellfire

pH wrote:

Communism is not atheism, and to lay its horrors at atheism's door is disingenuous to say the least.

While communism isn't atheism, atheism had a strong element within it. So imho it's valid to associate the two.
Just as religious ideals have been used as tool by those who coveted power and have corrupted there teachings to enforce a position. The same is true of state sponsored atheism for example (read communism as the best example). If we hold religion guilty by association of the practises of those who profess to uphold it. Since we aren’t hypocrites we should hold atheism equally guilty for the actions that have been carried out in its name also. For example in many repressive atheist states the religious are persecuted simply for their beliefs whether practiced privately or publicly.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

How do you improve a moral system? Morality is highly subjective. Who is Dawkins to say that his morality is superior to that of any religion?

Er, did you not get the "hard to prove God wrong" point.

That is the fundamental dangerous flaw in morality drawn from religion. Any morality that knows it is draw from only from humanity (which in reality all morality actually is, even religious morality) rather than religion will be prefereable.

Or do you disagree? Do you think sometimes have a moral system that believes it is draw from a divine God and therefore is much harder to challange or argue, is actually a good thing?

Playboy wrote:

So what is the point? Preach atheism but don't try and fill void religion leaves? Leave that to whatever political system we find ourselves living under?

First you are complaining that Dawkins was trying to shove his moral system down your mouth, now you are complaininig he isn't replacing the religious moral system with something else. You are missing the point.

The point of "preaching" atheism isn't to get you to replace your moral system completely, but to realise that your moral system comes from humans, not from a God, and therefore it is possible to argue and improve that system. Itis not set in stone. The silly illogical bits that cause war and suffering can be removed.

Playboy wrote:

How do we arrive at a universal morality that is superior to all others?

Through debate, argument, discussion etc, all of which is limited under religious moral systems.

Something like the UN declaration of human rights, or the US constitution were derived from humanity. No religion was needed.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Since we aren’t hypocrites we should hold atheism equally guilty for the actions that have been carried out in its name also. For example in many repressive atheist states the religious are persecuted simply for their beliefs whether practiced privately or publicly.

Kinda true, but you are comparing two things that aren't really similar. You are ignoring why religion is dangerous and how it justifies evil things. It is not simply that bad things are done by people who happen to be religious. It is that the religion itself is used as the justification for said bad things.

Atheism isn't a religion, its not a belief system. Most religions are a belief system. Religious oppression is normally justified by one of those beliefs (eg town A doesn't believe that prophet B really spoke to God, lets kill them).

Atheism is different. It doesn't say anything about morality, or provide a belief structure. It doesn't tell you how you should feel about or towards anything. Therefore it can't really be used to justify anything, good or bad.

So saying, I'm going to burn down that chuch because I'm an atheist doesn't make sense. Saying I'm going to burn down the church because I hate the religion. The two are different.

The oppression of religion in Communist countries was because the Communists didn't like religion, not because they were atheists. They believed religion was an threat to their power and the power of the state. They were atheists because they didn't like religion, but the two didn't replace each other.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Er, did you not get the "hard to prove God wrong" point.

That is the fundamental dangerous flaw in morality drawn from religion. Any morality that knows it is draw from only from humanity (which in reality all morality actually is, even religious morality) rather than religion will be prefereable.

Or do you disagree? Do you think sometimes have a moral system that believes it is draw from a divine God and therefore is much harder to challange or argue, is actually a good thing?

What I am saying is that is highly arrogant of us to assume moral superiority over anybody. People are as entitled to take their morals from a religious book as they are from any other book. For thousands of years religion has been the main influence on our morality and just becuase some of us have changed our perspective in recent times doesnt mean we have to expect the rest of the world to change with us. Would you complain that Mother Teresa was an immoral person or that religion had influenced her morality negatively or that richard Dawkins' is morally superior to her?

Wicknight wrote:

First you are complaining that Dawkins was trying to shove his moral system down your mouth, now you are complaininig he isn't replacing the religious moral system with something else. You are missing the point.

The point of "preaching" atheism isn't to get you to replace your moral system completely, but to realise that your moral system comes from humans, not from a God, and therefore it is possible to argue and improve that system. Itis not set in stone. The silly illogical bits that cause war and suffering can be removed.

That morality comes from humans and not from God is your opinion. Thats not an opinion shared by a large portion of this planet. How do we know that the moral situation is going to improve without religion. Analytical Philosophers such as John Rawls have spent their lives brilliantly arguing the moral case for egalatarianism but to no avail. Peoples morality you will find is usually based upon their position in society whether they are religious or not. Thats why people like Rawls get nowhere in the U.S. People will protect what they have and the rich are experts are arguing their own moral case. It is naive to think that just becuase you remove religion from the equation that somehow the moral situation is going to improve. The world doesnt work like that.

Wicknight wrote:

Something like the UN declaration of human rights, or the US constitution were derived from humanity. No religion was needed.

Ye becuase the US doesnt have any problems with morality and everybody listens to the UN :rolleyes:

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Atheism isn't a religion, its not a belief system. Most religions are a belief system. Religious oppression is normally justified by one of those beliefs (eg town A doesn't believe that prophet B really spoke to God, lets kill them).

Do you really think that Town B killing Town A has really anything to do with religion? People will always find an excuse to kill each other. If it wasnt religion it would be something else. Try addressing poverty in the world and see how many rich religious people kill each other because of religion

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote:

The oppression of religion in Communist countries was because the Communists didn't like religion, not because they were atheists. They believed religion was an threat to their power and the power of the state. They were atheists because they didn't like religion, but the two didn't replace each other.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Either they are atheists or they aren't. The fact remains it is atheism as sponsored by the state as a means of 'freeing' the masses and removing the support structures that organised religions can provide to counter them.
This is exactly the same in my opinion as say certain Islamic states sponsoring an Islamic education as a means of perpetuating their own influence.

The point I'm trying to make and forgive my rambling thoughts is that atheism like all religions (or non-religion/idea/belief/ call it what you will) can also be misappropriated and made suit a group’s purpose.

Where u say we should kill such and such since they don’t believe in X or Y. The repressive state can also use atheism to do the same; these religious are against you and must be removed for the good of the state. They can even use the very arguments used by atheists of ‘religion as the oppressor’ to remove those who would threaten their own oppression.

But we’re kind of getting off topic a good bit here. It might be worth branching the thread if our very own oppressor (the athirst) wishes the flow of the thread not to be broken.

pH

Back to the original topic (before we got attacked by all the 'atheists are really evil people too' posters) I missed Daniel Dennett's response in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1746188,00.html

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

What I am saying is that is highly arrogant of us to assume moral superiority over anybody.

Is it highly arrogant to state slavery is immoral (in the Bible), rape is immoral (in the Bible), execution is immoral (in the Bible) etc.

It is not arrogance to point out the immorality in some belief systems. That is the whole point, that humanity derived belief systems can be updated improved, where as ones based on religious contexts cannot without defining the religion itself.

Playboy wrote:

People are as entitled to take their morals from a religious book as they are from any other book.

True, and people like Dawkins are entitled to point out the flaw in that morality.

Playboy wrote:

Would you complain that Mother Teresa was an immoral person or that religion had influenced her morality negatively or that richard Dawkins' is morally superior to her?

How can one person be superior to another? What do they have a bareknuckle fight?

One example I would bring up with regard to Teresas woudl be her instruction that her workers baptise dying patients, even without their consent. Often this was done to Muslims or Hindus who did not understand what was happening to them. Naturally this goes against the idea of religous freedom and respecting beliefs. This would be an example of a religious belief system over stepping the mark, but arguing to Teresas that she shouldn't do this was pointless, because she believed this had to be done to save the souls of the dying.

Playboy wrote:

It is naive to think that just becuase you remove religion from the equation that somehow the moral situation is going to improve.

Playboy you are missing the point. Moral situation cannot improve until religion is stripped from legal/cultural morality. Or should we compare the civil liberites in a legally secular country like the US with a legally religious country like Iran?

Playboy wrote:

Ye becuase the US doesnt have any problems with morality and everybody listens to the UN :rolleyes:

Er, what?

The laws that protect people's civil liberties in the US are constantly under attack from religous grousp trying to push their religion on others. The thing that protects them is the US constitution. It protects the preciesely because it is secular in nature.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Do you really think that Town B killing Town A has really anything to do with religion? People will always find an excuse to kill each other. If it wasnt religion it would be something else. Try addressing poverty in the world and see how many rich religious people kill each other because of religion

Possibly true, but then it is hard to argue against town B attacking town A if God is used as the reason. You would probably get burnt at the stake

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote:

This is exactly the same in my opinion as say certain Islamic states sponsoring an Islamic education as a means of perpetuating their own influence.

Not really, because countries like Iran control the population through the belief system of Islam. Atheism doesn't have a belief system so you cannot control anyone through it. How would you?

The communists didn't control the country through the belief system of Atheism, they controlled the country through the belief system of Communism, one of whichs belief was that everyone should be an atheist.

Communism has beliefs, rules, idiology, dogma. So does Islam. Both can be used to control people through these rules and idiology. Do something wrong in an fundamentalist Islamic state you are affronting God. Do something wrong in a Communist country you are affronting the state/people.

Atheism doesn't have any belief system so how can anyone control someone with it?

Rev Hellfire wrote:

The point I'm trying to make and forgive my rambling thoughts is that atheism like all religions (or non-religion/idea/belief/ call it what you will) can also be misappropriated and made suit a group’s purpose.

Not really. You can certainly force people to be atheist, but the reason you are doing that is not because of any rules of atheism, its because of the rules of some other system, such as Communism.

As I said, atheism doesn't replace religion. You replace your religion with somethign else, Communism for example. You can of course argue the morality of such as system, but you aren't really talking about atheism. Atheism is a discription, not a belief system.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Where u say we should kill such and such since they don’t believe in X or Y. The repressive state can also use atheism to do the same;

But they don't use atheism. They use their belief system, like communism.

Religious people were not killed in USSR because of the rules of atheism. Atheism doesn't have any rules. They were killed because of the rules of Communism, specifically Marx/Lenin communism, which teaches that religion is evil and dangerous to the state.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

But we’re kind of getting off topic a good bit here. It might be worth branching the thread if our very own oppressor (the athirst) wishes the flow of the thread not to be broken.

Agreed

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054914721

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Is it highly arrogant to state slavery is immoral (in the Bible), rape is immoral (in the Bible), execution is immoral (in the Bible) etc.

It is not arrogance to point out the immorality in some belief systems. That is the whole point, that humanity derived belief systems can be updated improved, where as ones based on religious contexts cannot without defining the religion itself.

Look Wicknight, morality is relative. To assume that one moral system is superior to another is arrogant. Relgious people telling us what is right and wrong is just as arrogant as us telling them what is right and wrong.

Wicknight wrote:

True, and people like Dawkins are entitled to point out the flaw in that morality.

On who's authority? Who is Dawkins to point out flaws in any moral system? I don't remember electing him as my representative as an atheist/agnostic.

Wicknight wrote:

How can one person be superior to another? What do they have a bareknuckle fight?

Exactly my point ... you cant say that one person or one belief system is superior to another.

Wicknight wrote:

Playboy you are missing the point. Moral situation cannot improve until religion is stripped from legal/cultural morality. Or should we compare the civil liberites in a legally secular country like the US with a legally religious country like Iran?

You are missing my point. To assume that the moral situation will improve becuase religion is removed from the equation is naive. It didnt happen in China or Russia People might have civil liberties in the US but tell that to huge population of people living below the poverty line while the system helps them stay down and the rich get richer.

Wicknight wrote:

The laws that protect people's civil liberties in the US are constantly under attack from religous grousp trying to push their religion on others. The thing that protects them is the US constitution. It protects the preciesely because it is secular in nature.

And what does the secular government do for the poor in their own country? They spend billions on foreign wars to protect the interests of the rich. They couldnt give a damn about the poor. How moral is that?

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Merely points this out? Is Dawkins seriously trying to make people believe that the world would be a better place if we all were atheists?.

Whats the difference between pointing something out and "seriously trying to make people believe" ... would you preferr if we has only half seriously pointing this out.

Playboy wrote:

If I remember correctly it was the Jews who were being persecuted in World War 2. What about communism in Russia and China and all the atroicities that were committed? Is atheism not just as dangerous? Hypocrisy anybody?

Only if you don't understand what atheism is or the point Dawkins is making :rolleyes:

See the new thread I started for a discussion on what atheism is and isn't

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Look Wicknight, morality is relative. To assume that one moral system is superior to another is arrogant. Relgious people telling us what is right and wrong is just as arrogant as us telling them what is right and wrong.

Playboy, for the LAST TIME, atheism isn't a moral system. Dawkins is not trying to replace religion with the atheism moral system, because that doesn't exist.

What he would like is that we remove religion from the formation of our moral systems.

We should realise that all morality comes from humans, and that no moral system is beyond arguing and improvement.

Really, at the heart of Dawkins argument, is that the infaliability of God should be removed from discussions on morality. Do you actually disagree with this? Do you think it is a good thing to keep the idea that morals are Gods word and therefore cannot be argued against?

Playboy wrote:

On who's authority?

Authority? WTF? Under the authority of the freedom of ideas and discussion. That might be an alien concept in the realm of religious morality, but then that is kinda the point?

Playboy wrote:

Who is Dawkins to point out flaws in any moral system? I don't remember electing him as my representative as an atheist/agnostic.

Elect him? Again WTF are you talking about. Atheism isn't a democractic movement. I wouldn't even call it a movement. It is a discription.

Playboy wrote:

Exactly my point ... you cant say that one person or one belief system is superior to another.

You can't really say one person is superior to another.

You can say that one moral system is superior to another. Slavery is an inferrer moral system to democracy. There, I said it.

Playboy wrote:

You are missing my point. To assume that the moral situation will improve becuase religion is removed from the equation is naive. It didnt happen in China or Russia.

No one is assuming anything. But removing religion from moral situations can improve things. The seperation of church and state in the US is a classic example.

What is naive is to assume that just because you have a moral system that has no religion in it it will be automatically a great moral system. But then, no one is doing that

Playboy wrote:

People might have civil liberties in the US but tell that to huge population of people living below the poverty line while the system helps them stay down and the rich get richer.

Again, what does that have to do with anything? Is the fact that a lot of poor people live in the US an argument against seperation of church and state?? Not following you here at all

Playboy wrote:

And what does the secular government do for the poor in their own country? They spend billions on foreign wars to protect the interests of the rich. They couldnt give a damn about the poor. How moral is that?

And that is because they are secular? Would it be better if George Bush was a deeply religous person? Oh wait ... :rolleyes:

robindch

> If I remember correctly it was the Jews who were being
> persecuted in World War 2.

I do remember correctly that it was Hitler who claimed to be doing god's work. See the last two sentences of Chapter Two of Volume One of Mein Kampf:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Not much atheism there, I think you'll agree.

> And what does the secular government do for the poor in their own
> country? They spend billions on foreign wars to protect the interests
> of the rich. They couldnt give a damn about the poor. How moral is that?

It's completely unethical and given that the USA is easily the most religiously fundamentalist western country, I think you've just demonstrated everybody else's point that religion is not a reliable guide to ethical behaviour. There was an interesting article on this topic in the Times last year:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

...which expands upon your point -- societies which claim to have a god or gods on their side tend "towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide". A more succinct version of the above is here:

http://www.f*ckthesouth.com/

What you're failing to grasp is the difference between what religion says it's for ("morality" and "meaning"), and what it actually manages to achieve (artificial divisions, hypocrisy, reason for conflict etc, etc). And that's what Dawkin's was brave enough to point out and what religious people seem unable to entertain, let alone to accept.

Playboy

robindch wrote:

What you're failing to grasp is the difference between what religion says it's for ("morality" and "meaning"), and what it actually manages to achieve (artificial divisions, hypocrisy, reason for conflict etc, etc). And that's what Dawkin's was brave enough to point out and what religious people seem unable to entertain, let alone to accept.

The only thing I am failing to grasp is how naive people actually are and the delusions they are under. You make a sweeping generalisation about what you think religion is for and what you think it achieves and you cant see for the life of you see how bigoted you are being.

pH

Playboy wrote:

and you cant see for the life of you how bigoted you are being.

Only a 'self proclaimed philosopher' such as yourself Playboy would resort to calling robindch a bigot because you cannot argue against their position.

robindch in my opinion is one of the least prejudiced and most tolerant posters here.

Playboy

I'm not labeling Robin a bigot. The statement he made in regard to religion is bigoted. People on this board are generally intolerant of any kind of religious belief to the point of being prejudiced. The last time i checked that was what a bigot was. I'm not even remotely religious but i'm astonished at the one sided negativity that people spout on this board where people supposedly pride themselves on being rational and objective.

Btw pH, i never self proclaimed myself as anything. I have a degree in Philosophy but I am studying Psychology. Maybe studying the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of science has given me a different perspective on these issues but I dont see why that has to be a negative thing. You obviously have some problem with philosophy which knowing you is completely unjustified because you have shown in a number of threads a complete lack of knowledge as to what it even is.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

The only thing I am failing to grasp is how naive people actually are and the delusions they are under. You make a sweeping generalisation about what you think religion is for and what you think it achieves and you cant see for the life of you see how bigoted you are being.

Points you seem to be ignoring. If you want to explain why myself, Dawkins, or robindch are actually wrong feel free.

Do you think basing a moral system around the idea that moral laws come from an infalable God is a good system to use? Do you accept any of the problems that have been mentioned here?

robindch

> You make a sweeping generalisation about what you think religion is for
> and what you think it achieves and you cant see for the life of you see
> how bigoted you are being.

I see nothing "bigoted" about describing religion as it is, rather than how people like to think that it is. I notice too that you have not addressed any of the points that I, or anybody else, has made, but rather resorted to the easier business of name-calling, from which anybody still left reading this thread will be able to draw their own conclusions.

> I have a degree in Philosophy but I am studying Psychology.

In that case, I would suggest you use your knowledge of philosophy to analyze the reasonableness of most religions' absolute, but absolutely different, claims to perfect knowledge, inerrant truth and authoritarian (or taboo) morality. Then complememt this with your knowledge of human psychology to examine whether or not religion might simply have evolved as cultural entity to supply, or feed upon, basic human psychological features such as the need for hierarchy, authority, strict rules, ingrouping, ancestor-worship etc, etc.

> i'm astonished at the one sided negativity that people spout on this
> board where people supposedly pride themselves on being rational
> and objective.

Have you considered that a rational and objective analysis might lead a rational and objective person towards a negative view of religion? You don't seem to have, but I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

Playboy

>I see nothing "bigoted" about describing religion as it is, rather >than how people like to think that it is. I notice too that you have not >addressed any of the points that I, or anybody else, has made, but rather >resorted to the easier business of name-calling, from which anybody still left >reading this thread will be able to draw their own conclusions.

Religion as it is? You have described religion in a biased and negative light. It is not that simple and a lot of people would disagree with you. I have addressed practically every point on this thread. The only points i havent replied to are ones that i have either conceded or dont think are worth replying to. I havent resorted to calling people names. I think you made a bigoted statement. I pointed that out to you.

>In that case, I would suggest you use your knowledge of philosophy to analyze the reasonableness of most religions' absolute, but absolutely different, claims to perfect knowledge, inerrant truth and authoritarian (or taboo) morality. Then complememt this with your knowledge of human psychology to examine whether or not religion might simply have evolved as cultural entity to supply, or feed upon, basic human psychological features such as the need for hierarchy, authority, strict rules, ingrouping, ancestor->worship etc, etc.

My own personal feelings on how religion developed and what purpose it serves are irrelevant. I respect the fact that other people apart from the atheists in this world are intelligent and can make up their own mind on the vailidity of what they believe. I'm not going to disrespect people by telling them that what they believe is a delusion when I havent seen the world through their eyes.

>Have you considered that a rational and objective analysis might lead a >rational and objective person towards a negative view of religion? You don't >seem to have, but I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

I'm not saying religion is the perfect guide to moral behaviour. What I am saying is that there is no absolute justification for any kind of moral behaviour. There is no grounds upon which we can claim moral superiority over another moral system unless we subscibe to some authority whether it be God or rational thought.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

There is no grounds upon which we can claim moral superiority over another moral system .

Playboy that is nonsense. As I've said a few times a moral system that allows something like slavery is an inferrior moral system. I don't think anyone in the west would argue against that position

jtsuited

ok playboy you are seriously failing to make any sort of coherent rebuttal to robdinch or wicknight's (very strong) arguments.
One thing i'd like you to consider is that in most (i think) atheists eyes, the very core characteristic of religion is it's very fault. And this fault is faith.

Faith is based upon belief and not knowledge or reason. Please do not make me have to point out the dangers of such a concept in a world inhabited by a species that has a strange tendency to murder and rape in the name of X.

X being a belief they feel is somehow beyond the scope of dicussion and rational analysis.
You also seem to be convinced that morality can only exist with religion. Pleas read up on the subject of morality.

BTW, Wicknight's arguments here are possibly the most coherent and intelligent i've ever seen on this topic.

Zombrex

jtsuited wrote:

And this fault is faith.

Faith and the manipulation of faith.

Dawkins would argue (I think) that the core aspect of religion is fundamentally immoral, that being the manipulation of fear and the promise of reward based on service to the religion.

Basically most western religions works by saying if you serve God you will be rewarded, but you must serve God for this. Serving God means living your life based on the teachings of the religion and living by the moral code layed down by the religion. That is a form of manipulation, and to a lot of people (especially people who are atheists) it is a rather distasteful form of manipulation.

This system of service-reward plays on fundamental fears of humanity (eg death-afterlife). Through this manipulation of basic human fears the religion is able to force its moral laws on the followers of the religion. If you want the reward you must follow the system. Don't follow the system no reward.

Many atheists would see this process as fundementally irresponsible and immoral, that it is wrong for any system to manipulate people in this fashion.

That is not to say that the people in the religion are necessarily immoral or "evil". Most are oblivioius to the true nature of the system since they by definition believe in it. But the system itself is flawed.

Its like a money pyramid scheme. Even if both the new member or the person who brought them into the scheme geninuenly believe in the system, it doesn't mean the system isn't immoral to start with.

Playboy seems to think that merely stating this opinion is disrespectful to the beliefs of the religions members. I disagree. I respect the right of anyone to believe anything they want. But that doesn't mean that others around them should not point out flaws and faults in their beliefs. I would expect anyone to challange my beliefs. I might not agree with their critisim but they have the right, and some woudl say the responsibility, to express what they believe. Same goes for me.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Playboy that is nonsense. As I've said a few times a moral system that allows something like slavery is an inferrior moral system. I don't think anyone in the west would argue against that position

How do you judge what is inferior? Is Slavery inferior becuase it restricts peoples freedom. What is freedom? Do you believe in negative or positive freedom? Why do we hold freedom as a moral ideal? How do we justify that ideal and claim its superiority over other cultures values and ideals? What authority do we appeal to .. God, rationality?

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

How do you judge what is inferior? Is Slavery inferior becuase it restricts peoples freedom. What is freedom? Do you believe in negative or positive freedom? Why do we hold freedom as a moral ideal? How do we justify that ideal and claim its superiority over other cultures values and ideals? What authority do we appeal to .. God, rationality?

*Groan* (again)

Do you have a point, or are you just trying to drag this conversation into a philisophical debate on the nature of morality to avoid responding to what we are already talking about.

Do you agree or disagree that slavery is immoral? Your opinion answers your own questions above. Do you think slavery is immoral but you think you should not restrict others from practicing slavery?

Playboy

jtsuited wrote:

ok playboy you are seriously failing to make any sort of coherent rebuttal to robdinch or wicknight's (very strong) arguments.
One thing i'd like you to consider is that in most (i think) atheists eyes, the very core characteristic of religion is it's very fault. And this fault is faith.

Faith is based upon belief and not knowledge or reason. Please do not make me have to point out the dangers of such a concept in a world inhabited by a species that has a strange tendency to murder and rape in the name of X.

X being a belief they feel is somehow beyond the scope of dicussion and rational analysis.

Thank god i have you here to point out to me what faith is :rolleyes: It is you my friend who misunderstands the concept of faith. Try and do some research on what faith actually means before you lecture people on it.

jtsuited wrote:

You also seem to be convinced that morality can only exist with religion. Pleas read up on the subject of morality.

You obviously cant follow the debate if you think I am convinced of this.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

*Groan* (again)

Do you have a point, or are you just trying to drag this conversation into a philisophical debate on the nature of morality to avoid responding to what we are already talking about.

Do you agree or disagree that slavery is immoral? Your opinion answers your own questions above. Do you think slavery is immoral but you think you should not restrict others from practicing slavery?

Why are you dragging the debate off topic? We are talking about religious beliefs not slavery. Yes I do think slavery is wrong but I am also aware that my view is colored by the society and cultura that I was born and raised in. I would doubt very much that i would have thought it was wrong if I was born and raised in Ancient Greece.

I do believe that slavery should be restricted but as I said before that view is influenced by the society I live in.

Rev Hellfire

On the topic of is Dawkins a liability or not to 'atheism' for what I've seen of the man (and its not a lot, just the channel4 series) I would say he is. I would think myself somewhat receptive to the atheist position, but I found him infective when it came to convincing me of his arguments. It seems to me he likes to creates straw men that he then proceeds to knock down for his own intellectual vanity. The cult of Dawkins is stronger than the message been put across; he appears as an intellectual bully talking down to the audience.
And while I suspect his appreciative audience of firm disbeliveers may appreciate it, they aren’t the ones you need to convince.
To my mind the series done by Robert Winston was much more effective since he merely presented the facts and allowed the audience to reach the conclusions by themselves, thus making it’s a stronger and more effective series. (ps I know he not an athiest)