More Dawkins critism

aidan24326

Scofflaw wrote:

If you are not making such a claim, then you accept that all human experience/emotion is not interchangeable - that there are certain kinds of pleasure/satisfaction you can only get out of certain things/experiences. If that is generally the case, why does it suddenly stop being the case just because we are talking about religion?

Of course not all human experience/emotion is interchangeable, but that's not what I was saying. Merely that some of the religious are convinced that religion is the only way to achieve certain ends, be it a moral framework or a sense of belonging. And I'm saying it isn't.

I've lost count of the number times the questions have been asked on these forums, as to how can atheists possibly be happy, how can we possibly have any morals etc., as if religion were the sole provider of all. If Captain Capslock or his ilk feel it's the only way for them personally then that's their choice and they're free to make it, but it doesn't mean they're right in any objective sense.

...and the stupid will always be with us.

Indeed they will.

Even if we accept the idea that only stupid people are religious (not true by a long chalk)

I don't accept that idea at all, it is patently not the case. I have no problem reconciling the fact that a very intelligent person should believe in some 'grand designer' or the like, fair enough. But when someone of otherwise high intelligence believes the whole kit and caboodle, complete with happily ever after, now that I do find a little hard to understand. though it is interesting from a psychological perspective.

what are you suggesting they should do otherwise? Or do we simply say "tough, Captain Capslock, you're stupid, and so even though you would derive pleasure from religion, you can't have it"?

I'm suggesting they should join the real world where the rest of us live. And your last comment hits at a major part of the problem with religion imo.

If Captain Caps et al want to believe in sky fairies and Noah and heaven and all of that stuff then absolutely they are entitled to. At a personal level it is not a whole lot of harm and even Dawkins acknowledges this. The problem begins when such irrationality is preached to the masses as fact, and when the organisations that peddle these falsehoods are allowed to wield influence on political and social policy, on behaviours and social norms, based on a worldview that is at best just wrong, and at worst dangerously misleading. Can we not learn anything from history?

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

Of course not all human experience/emotion is interchangeable, but that's not what I was saying. Merely that some of the religious are convinced that religion is the only way to achieve certain ends, be it a moral framework or a sense of belonging. And I'm saying it isn't.

I've lost count of the number times the questions have been asked on these forums, as to how can atheists possibly be happy, how can we possibly have any morals etc., as if religion were the sole provider of all. If Captain Capslock or his ilk feel it's the only way for them personally then that's their choice and they're free to make it, but it doesn't mean they're right in any objective sense.

Well, it's true, for them. It may even be objectively true, for them. However, as you say, when they decide it is true for others, they are wrong.

Unfortunately, the same applies to us atheists. That we derive nothing from religion does not mean that others don't - a point, which despite your mild language, you clearly do not accept as actually true.

Consider the "War in Heaven" thread over in the Christianity forum. It's bizarre - really really profoundly weird. Yet clearly people find a deep satisfaction in it - in their understanding of it, in their understanding of what it "means" - they bring a passion to it that perhaps nothing else in their lives generates. At the same time, it's no more weird than listening to Trekkies, or techies - these people are just Bible geeks.

What I would consider it our duty to fight against, as atheists, is the extension of any of this geekery to real life. To my mind, that argues for being tolerant of religion - all religion - because I believe if we put all religions on an equal footing, they will cancel each other out with their endless petty doctrinal differences. Giving them atheists to fight is a bad option, because it encourages them to unite.

aidan24326 wrote:

I don't accept that idea at all, it is patently not the case. I have no problem reconciling the fact that a very intelligent person should believe in some 'grand designer' or the like, fair enough. But when someone of otherwise high intelligence believes the whole kit and caboodle, complete with happily ever after, now that I do find a little hard to understand. though it is interesting from a psychological perspective.

Again, this is essentially false. We can try the assumption that all fundamentalists are stupid or mendacious or insane, and we will rapidly run into the fact that it is simply not true.

A large number of people hold to the NOMA principle - that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisterial areas" - that they have their competences, which are separate, and that the tools used by one are of no utility in the other.

You might say, and I would agree, that this simply allows people to compartmentalise things in order to suspend their own judgement, like a man having an affair.

However, to repeat myself for the umpteenth time - why does religion have to be judged scientifically? Is democracy? Law? Justice? Charity? Literature? Is the judgement given in a case somehow "scientifically valid", or is the question meaningless? I think the question is meaningless - nevertheless, the atheist chooses to judge religion by scientific standards, because it lends a comforting aura of authority to his lack of belief.

Science does not prove atheism. It provides a coherent and intellectually satisfying framework that does not require the supernatural, and excludes it a priori.

Unfortunately for the atheist, that very exclusion prevents science from making any meaningful judgement on the supernatural. The supernatural is "non-scientific", not because science has proven it to be false, but because science has chosen to assume it false.

aidan24326 wrote:

I'm suggesting they should join the real world where the rest of us live. And your last comment hits at a major part of the problem with religion imo.

If Captain Caps et al want to believe in sky fairies and Noah and heaven and all of that stuff then absolutely they are entitled to. At a personal level it is not a whole lot of harm and even Dawkins acknowledges this. The problem begins when such irrationality is preached to the masses as fact, and when the organisations that peddle these falsehoods are allowed to wield influence on political and social policy, on behaviours and social norms, based on a worldview that is at best just wrong, and at worst dangerously misleading. Can we not learn anything from history?

Well, one of the things we can learn from history is that almost every religion and political system through history, whether atheist or theist, has rounded up the same basic list of suspects - homosexuals, minorities (usually Jews), foreigners, women, perverts, etc etc. People just love to get their hate on - and the targets are usually the same. Religion is mostly irrelevant - if the US fundies weren't anti-gay for religious reasons, they'd be anti-gay for "social" or "political" reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sapien

Scofflaw wrote:

However, if someone said "I find an emotional satisfaction in Catholicism that I have not found elsewhere", why should you assume that they are simply wrong, or holding a false belief?

I wouldn't. If, however, someone were to say "I find an emotional satisfaction in [religion] that I could not find elsewhere", I would say they are either wrong, or damaged.

Scofflaw wrote:

Would you argue the same case if they said "I find an emotional satisfaction in good literature that I have not found elsewhere"? That they hold a "very limiting, potentially injurious" belief?

No. Because literature is a freebee. It gives what it gives and demands nothing in return. It carries no obligations, conceals no sacrifices, imposes no limitations. Its fruit are freely open to anyone, regardless of how they live their lives - very much unlike religion. The limitations that religions place on the lives of their adherents need not be described here, and the idea of being bound to these limitations in order to obtain what is perceived to be some vital ingredient for life should be abominable to any rational person, surely.

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't agree. Faith, and religious experience, seem to have their own forms of satisfaction. As far as I know, it's been scientifically studied - and what most people respond to is the experience of "worship" in a group setting. It's a particular kind of buzz.

Here you are conflating religion and spirituality in a way that highlights how important the distinction between the two is.

Scofflaw wrote:

Obviously, no religious community can present themselves as a sham. However, one may well observe that many people maintain religious practice without examining their concept of God too closely, in case it should turn out to be silly. They believe, but in what they generally can't say - however, the belief that they believe is important to them, and they will abandon a "faith" that admits it is a sham, because it can no longer offer an "authentic" religious experience.

Er, I don't quite follow. Suffice it to say that I would appraise a religion on that which it teaches its followers and the ways it brings its avowed beliefs to bear on society at large, not on some colloquial and highly questionable supposition that its most sacred tenet is dispensable. There may be a distinction between the religious practitioner and the religious institution begging to be made here, but from the point of view of Dawkins and his assertions, I don't think it matters hugely.

Sapien

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, one of the things we can learn from history is that almost every religion and political system through history, whether atheist or theist, has rounded up the same basic list of suspects - homosexuals, minorities (usually Jews), foreigners, women, perverts, etc etc. People just love to get their hate on - and the targets are usually the same.

A small, and possibly pedantic objection here, but I can think of many religions (according to a definition that I would not, but most people do, and I assume you use) and political regimes that are free of guilt on the counts of discrimination against homosexuals and foreigners. Many civilisations have accepted homosexuality as par for the course in life, not least the Greeks. In the state of Sparta it was mandated by law that every teenage boy have an adult male mentor, who was expected to show physical love to his charge. And many, generally mercantile cultures have thrived upon interaction with the foreigner to the extent that it would become enshrined in the mos maiorem to be welcoming to the outsider. The Quran for instance, stresses the importance of succouring to the foreigner.

Scofflaw

Sapien wrote:

I wouldn't. If, however, someone were to say "I find an emotional satisfaction in [religion] that I could not find elsewhere", I would say they are either wrong, or damaged.

I would accept that, up to a point. It applies to anything, though - people should not believe that it is only possible to find a given satisfaction through one particular thing - by doing so, they limit themselves without enquiry. In addition, they make it more likely that they will interpret the statement as normative - that other people should find this satisfaction through this one particular thing.

Sapien wrote:

No. Because literature is a freebee. It gives what it gives and demands nothing in return. It carries no obligations, conceals no sacrifices, imposes no limitations. Its fruit are freely open to anyone, regardless of how they live their lives - very much unlike religion. The limitations that religions place on the lives of their adherents need not be described here, and the idea of being bound to these limitations in order to obtain what is perceived to be some vital ingredient for life should be abominable to any rational person, surely.

What if we applied the question to, oh, say, science? I think I can safely say that science places very severe limitations on what you can and cannot accept, although it is not behaviourally normative.

Sapien wrote:

Here you are conflating religion and spirituality in a way that highlights how important the distinction between the two is.

Not really - I did try to make it clear that I was talking about the experience of group worship - that is, the experience attributable to religion, rather than spirituality.

Sapien wrote:

Er, I don't quite follow. Suffice it to say that I would appraise a religion on that which it teaches its followers and the ways it brings its avowed beliefs to bear on society at large, not on some colloquial and highly questionable supposition that its most sacred tenet is dispensable. There may be a distinction between the religious practitioner and the religious institution begging to be made here, but from the point of view of Dawkins and his assertions, I don't think it matters hugely.

Well, see above. Religion is, first and foremost, a group activity formalised by certain arbitrary rules. To suggest that the rules are dispensable is to lose the whole spirit of the thing - but that is not the same thing as taking them seriously.

An apt analogy would be a role-playing game. The players know that they are not dwarves, or elven paladins, but have to respect the rules in order to play the game - that is, the rules are not dispensable in-game. Another analogy would be a kid's gang, where certain arbitrary beliefs are stated as necessary - that a demon lives in such and such a hole in the wall, that Mrs X is a witch - again, these rules are almost certainly not believed in passionately, but rather simply held partly as shibboleths, and partly because they are of themselves agreeable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sapien

Scofflaw wrote:

What if we applied the question to, oh, say, science? I think I can safely say that science places very severe limitations on what you can and cannot accept, although it is not behaviourally normative.

Science places limitations on what one can and cannot accept if one wishes to think of oneself as scientifically minded. Also, science is the one true path to real knowledge, so I'm inclined to grant it a degree of discernment

And it is not, as you say, behaviourally normative. It is difficult to commit a sin against science, unless one is a scientist.

Scofflaw wrote:

Not really - I did try to make it clear that I was talking about the experience of group worship - that is, the experience attributable to religion, rather than spirituality.

One can worship communally without religion. In fact, the best group worship is to be had amongst people who tend to despise religion. And whether this "buzz" is very different from that experienced in any other kind of ritual work, or at a good concert for that matter, is highly questionable.

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, see above. Religion is, first and foremost, a group activity formalised by certain arbitrary rules. To suggest that the rules are dispensable is to lose the whole spirit of the thing.

An apt analogy would be a role-playing game. The players know that they are not dwarves, or elven paladins, but have to respect the rules in order to play the game - that is, the rules are not dispensable in-game. Another analogy would be a kid's gang, where certain arbitrary beliefs are stated as necessary - that a demon lives in such and such a hole in the wall, that Mrs X is a witch - again, these rules are almost certainly not believed in passionately, but rather simply held partly as shibboleths, and partly because they are of themselves agreeable.

Right, but I see no reason to believe that such internal conceits are harboured by religious communities. The way you describe it, it seems an almost untestable hypothesis. And most religious people I have met would find your role-playing analogy highly offensive (as amusing it really is).

It would be difficult to believe that such willful half-suspension of disbelief is at play in the mind of, say, the suicide bomber, or the evangelical pastor. Perhaps the Anglican theologian, or the church-going physicist, but these people comprise a tiny minority when one is addressing the issue of religion in the world at large.

Scofflaw

Sapien wrote:

Science places limitations on what one can and cannot accept if one wishes to think of oneself as scientifically minded. Also, science is the one true path to real knowledge, so I'm inclined to grant it a degree of discernment

"One true path".

Sapien wrote:

And it is not, as you say, behaviourally normative. It is difficult to commit a sin against science, unless one is a scientist.

And hard to see how one can commit sins aganst the Christian God if one is not Christian.

Sapien wrote:

One can worship communally without religion. In fact, the best group worship is to be had amongst people who tend to despise religion. And whether this "buzz" is very different from that experienced in any other kind of ritual work, or at a good concert for that matter, is highly questionable.

wor·ship Pronunciation (wûrshp)
n.
1.
a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
2. Ardent devotion; adoration.
3. often Worship Chiefly British Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship.

v. wor·shiped or wor·shipped, wor·ship·ing or wor·ship·ping, wor·ships
v.tr.
1. To honor and love as a deity.
2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion. See Synonyms at revere1.
v.intr.
1. To participate in religious rites of worship.
2. To perform an act of worship.

What characterises religion more than worship?

Sapien wrote:

Right, but I see no reason to believe that such internal conceits are harboured by religious communities. The way you describe it, it seems an almost untestable hypothesis. And most religious people I have met would find your role-playing analogy highly offensive (as amusing it really is).

It would be difficult to believe that such willful half-suspension of disbelief is at play in the mind of, say, the suicide bomber, or the evangelical pastor. Perhaps the Anglican theologian, or the church-going physicist, but these people comprise a tiny minority when one is addressing the issue of religion in the world at large.

If you choose to claim that only those who are passionately devout are actually religious, and that therefore the religious are passionately devout, I can't stop you.

However, I can't believe (!) you're honestly suggesting that the vast majority of "the faithful" are as ardent as the suicide bomber, or the evangelical pastor? That all those people in Ireland who consider themselves Catholic are blindingly devout? Get away!

I detect the sulphurous smell of "special definition" here.

amazed,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

I would prefer, myself, some sort of utilitarian secular vision - increased happiness, environmental friendliness, etc. Sort of like Iain M. Banks Culture.

Without milking this too much, even if Dawkins took up the question of ‘what comes after religion’ by saying ‘read Consider Phlebas’, then at least he would be giving some sort of vision.

I think you‘re rightly saying that the reason people adhere to religion, and get all animated about whether there was ever a war in heaven, is because the overall package gives them something worthwhile.

Dawkins might even reflect himself on the way that he reports himself to be comfortable with the Church of England, notwithstanding his mission as an atheist messiah. If he feels that way about his old faith, it should hardly be a surprise that people don’t desert religion in droves once it occurs to them that the whole God business is a little unlikely.

People will be attracted to atheism (assuming we adopt Dawkins’ evangelical outlook as an objective) when it has something in its outlook that makes it attractive to people. If he wants to produce a work that helps that process, he needs to answer the question ‘What makes religion attractive when it’s all so damn unlikely?’

I think we can pick out likely factors such as joy of group worship, individual significance, sense of identity, validation of lifestyle, ceremonial milestones. A book I read recently on the psychology of religion would add the feature of intensity of belief increasing in situations of stress or loss. I think the point is to start identifying which of these factors looks to be the most important by listening to what theists say, rather than creating and imposing our interpretation of what this all means.

Zillah

This might sound quite obtuse, but I genuinely wonder: What does "perfect" mean in this context?

I can only use the word "perfect" in relation to a goal. For example "This screwdriver is perfect for this screw", there is no screwdriver that could possibly be more suitable. Or "She is my perfect woman", meaning there is no woman out there who would be a better match for me.

What does "perfect" mean in an objective sense? I'm almost certain its a non-word.

Sapien

Scofflaw wrote:

"One true path".

Scofflaw wrote:

And hard to see how one can commit sins aganst the Christian God if one is not Christian.

Not at all. If one fornicates, steals or denies the existence of the Holy Spirit, one is sinning according to Christian rules, whether one is Christian or not. To "sin" according to the rules of science one must be engaged in the scientific process in some way, and going about it incorrectly.

Scofflaw wrote:

wor·ship Pronunciation (wûrshp)
n.
1.
a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
2. Ardent devotion; adoration.
3. often Worship Chiefly British Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship.

v. wor·shiped or wor·shipped, wor·ship·ing or wor·ship·ping, wor·ships
v.tr.
1. To honor and love as a deity.
2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion. See Synonyms at revere1.
v.intr.
1. To participate in religious rites of worship.
2. To perform an act of worship.

What characterises religion more than worship?

A proscriptive moral code, an authoritative hierarchy and a canonical "received" text. These things are not more crucial in religion than worship, but distinguish religion from other forms of spirituality, which may also involve worship.

Scofflaw wrote:

If you choose to claim that only those who are passionately devout are actually religious, and that therefore the religious are passionately devout, I can't stop you.

I don't know why you have shifted the discussion from "believe in God" to "passionate devotion". I would begin from the assumption that a religious person believes in God, rather than assuming the opposite. I don't see how the degree of passion with which they are devoted to that God comes into this.

Scofflaw wrote:

However, I can't believe (!) you're honestly suggesting that the vast majority of "the faithful" are as ardent as the suicide bomber, or the evangelical pastor?

I don't believe I did.

Scofflaw wrote:

That all those people in Ireland who consider themselves Catholic are blindingly devout? Get away!

Blindly devout? Did I say that? Believe in God - yes. Why would I think otherwise?

Scofflaw wrote:

I detect the sulphurous smell of "special definition" here.

Of what?

Schuhart

Zillah wrote:

This might sound quite obtuse, but I genuinely wonder: What does "perfect" mean in this context?

I can only use the word "perfect" in relation to a goal. For example "This screwdriver is perfect for this screw", there is no screwdriver that could possibly be more suitable. Or "She is my perfect woman", meaning there is no woman out there who would be a better match for me.

What does "perfect" mean in an objective sense? I'm also certain its a non-word.

I don't have a definition, but I think there is a concept there. 'Perfect' in this context means you can't actually think of any improvement.

She might be the best woman for you, given what's available. That best might be very good indeed. But you might still torture yourself with this image of a woman who was better still. Until there is no 'better still' you can imagine, you haven't got perfection.

Put another way, consider the design of a car. Every car made to that design will vary slightly to that design - probably in no material way. However, that still makes for a division between the 'perfect' car represented by the design and the yoke sitting outside your house. (You might equally argue that the design is just an imperfect reflection of some abstract idea of the perfect car - that's much the same concept).

There is a distinction, and 'perfect' has a meaning. Whether it has any relevance to proving the existance of god is another matter.

Zillah

From the above I still maintain that such a view of "perfect" is a nonesense word. You have to set in place criteria by which something can be judged, and if it is 100% suitable then it is "perfect". Otherwise you may as well replace "perfect" with "magic".

robindch

> 'Perfect' in this context means you can't actually think of any improvement.

...which is Zillah's point: it's completely subjective. Or, more to the point, a subjective judgment passed off as an objective one -- a common tactic in religious discourse.

> There is a distinction, and 'perfect' has a meaning.

Yes, but only a meaning for the speaker. It reminds me of that Mencken line: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

Beauty must imply some form of perfection, surely?

Scofflaw

People are surely aware of the concept of, say, a perfect circle - that is, a circle which is defined by a line, not approximated by a series of very short straight lines.

Such a thing cannot exist in material reality, but is certainly an application of the word 'perfect' which does not really mean 'fit for the purpose'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

Scofflaw wrote:

Originally Posted by aidan24326
I don't accept that idea at all, it is patently not the case.

Again, this is essentially false. We can try the assumption that all fundamentalists are stupid or mendacious or insane, and we will rapidly run into the fact that it is simply not true

Of course I agree with you on that. By 'I don't accept that idea...' I meant the idea of all religious people being stupid, not that I didn't agree with you. My fault for poor wording.

A large number of people hold to the NOMA principle - that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisterial areas" - that they have their competences, which are separate, and that the tools used by one are of no utility in the other

NOMA just conveniently shields religion from any questioning of the claims it makes. Religion invites scientific scrutiny by making claims that are provably false by scientific methods, and other claims that although not yet falsifiable (if ever) can still be shown to be very unlikely based on scientific evidence.
If religion only made claims about non-scientific matters such as morality and ethics, and stuck to those areas of human endeavour that are subjective and where religion may have as much to say as anyone else, then that would be fine. Then NOMA would hold.

But this is clearly not the case. The problem is that religion, particularly the RC Church, has something to say about bloody everything, even those things that are very obviously way outside it's scope. Matters of geology, cosmology, biology, human sexuality, disease, birth control etc etc they have a say on all of it, and 99.99% of the time they're way wrong. That makes it absolutely essential that people are made aware of the glaring inaccuracies in church teachings, and for that we have science. Religion cannot claim exemption from scientific scrutiny while it persists in encroaching into scientific territory.

And btw, what are religion's competences? Dawkins, the subject of this thread, considers theology almost a non-subject, and I'm inclined to agree. I don't see what that subject can possibly add to human knowledge that can't a) be answered 100% better by science or b) dealt with by philosophy instead.

However, to repeat myself for the umpteenth time - why does religion have to be judged scientifically? Is democracy? Law? Justice? Charity? Literature? Is the judgement given in a case somehow "scientifically valid", or is the question meaningless? I think the question is meaningless - nevertheless, the atheist chooses to judge religion by scientific standards, because it lends a comforting aura of authority to his lack of belief

Law,Justice, and literature are not in the habit of making false claims to knowledge however. A court of law will call in professional scientific expertise where required. Religion on the other hand, doesn't need any help as they have all the answers already, you just have to consult the holy book.The question is meaningless for something like charity or democracy.

Unfortunately for the atheist, that very exclusion prevents science from making any meaningful judgement on the supernatural. The supernatural is "non-scientific", not because science has proven it to be false, but because science has chosen to assume it false

The supernatural is non-scientific by definition, though only while it remains unexplained. BUT, if science can't say much about that which is outside our realm of existence (or of current understanding) then I'm damned sure religion can't either. If there was some possibility of understanding the origins of the big bang (or whatever initiated our universe) who would you rather have working on the case? A bunch of theologians and bishops, or an assembly of the world's finest astrophysicists and cosmologists?

Well, one of the things we can learn from history is that almost every religion and political system through history, whether atheist or theist, has rounded up the same basic list of suspects - homosexuals, minorities (usually Jews), foreigners, women, perverts, etc etc. People just love to get their hate on - and the targets are usually the same. Religion is mostly irrelevant - if the US fundies weren't anti-gay for religious reasons, they'd be anti-gay for "social" or "political" reasons

I disagree with you that religion is irrelevant here. There is probably no more powerful tool for the dissemination of hatred and intolerance.

Zillah wrote:

From the above I still maintain that such a view of "perfect" is a nonesense word. You have to set in place criteria by which something can be judged, and if it is 100% suitable then it is "perfect". Otherwise you may as well replace "perfect" with "magic"

I agree. But is there even any such thing as something that is 100% suitable? Not unless you have set some exactly pre-defined criteria for what 100% suitable would be. When referring to a deity or supernatural being the word 'perfect' is completely meaningless imo and is just another piece of wordplay when used in that context. Perfect according to whom, according to what, who sets up the criteria for this supposed perfection? Is the word largely meaningless outside of subjective judgements when used in this way?

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

People are surely aware of the concept of, say, a perfect circle - that is, a circle which is defined by a line, not approximated by a series of very short straight lines.

There you go, you've given criteria for a perfect circle. Whether we can attain that or not is irrelevant, at least it has a definition.

For comparison, lets say someone is looking for the perfect "blue". Unless you first lay down criteria as to what the perfect blue is, its a nonesense phrase. Instead of "perfect blue" we may as well say "lurchsnaggen" or any other invented meaningless word.

The word "perfect" neccessitates context in which the given item is perfect.

Aidan24326 wrote:

I agree. But is there even any such thing as something that is 100% suitable? Not unless you have set some exactly pre-defined criteria for what 100% suitable would be. When referring to a deity or supernatural being the word 'perfect' is completely meaningless imo and is just another piece of wordplay when used in that context. Perfect according to whom, according to what, who sets up the criteria for this supposed perfection?

Something can, in theory be 100% appropriate. Once it fits the criteria to perfection, obviously, it is perfect, given the situation.

Now, realistically people are often going to refer to anything 90%+ as "perfect", which although not technically accurate, is fine day-to-day for most things.

As for the whole Deity thing, I agree. Unless you're describing how a given deity might be "perfect" for you, in terms of your lifestyle/morality, I don't see how it can be used in this bizarre, absolute, criteria-free sense.

Is the word largely meaningless outside of subjective judgements when used in this way?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

aidan24326

Is the word largely meaningless outside of subjective judgements when used in this way?

Zillah wrote:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

That didn't quite come out right. What I meant is does the word mean anything except in a subjective sense? Even when referring to something like a perfect circle, we are still making a prior judgement about what a 'perfect' circle should be. I guess the word doesn't mean anything without such predefined criteria.

Zillah

aidan24326 wrote:

Even when referring to something like a perfect circle, we are still making a prior judgement about what a 'perfect' circle should be.

Exactly. When someone says "perfect circle" we assume they're refering to the mathematical ideal (and hence have agree upon the criteria in which it is "perfect"). Of course, its possible that a person may mean a "red circle" when they say "perfect circle", or a "spinning circle" or a "wooden circle". Its safe to assume they're referring to the mathematical ideal unless they specify otherwise though

Zillah

And on the matter of the Anselm argument, I must admit I genuinely don't understand it.

Surely the argument requires the initial assumption of either A) God exists, or If you can imagine something it exists? Can someone explain the argument without relying on one of those initial assumptions? The first renders the argument meaningless as it is an argument attempting to prove God's existence, while the second is patently ridiculous, as demonstrated by my imagining that my computer would explode before I posted this.

Schuhart

But is the real distinction at the heart of this not between things that are objective and things that are subjective, rather than things that are perfect or imperfect? ‘Nicest circle’ or ‘most unpleasant circle’ are most certainly subjective judgements. ‘Roundest circle’ doesn’t strike me as subjective.

If someone was to enquire as to what a circle essentially is, it wouldn’t strike me as beyond reason that the quality of roundness would figure strongly in the results. It certainly is possible to envisage a perfectly round circle, and equally possible to accept that any actual circle will very likely have some flaw that denies it that perfection.

That’s really all I see at stake in this issue – that it is possible to envisage something that does not exist, or at least does not exist as that perfect ideal. I don’t doubt it’s possible to have a discussion about whether a perfect god would necessarily be eternal, infinitely good or all powerful. But it’s certainly possible to both recognise the kind of god being spoken of, and to envisage a being with those features.

Schuhart

Zillah wrote:

If you can imagine something it exists?

I take it to basically mean , and as you say falls for the very reason that a three headed goat isn't Secretary General of the United Union of India and Serbia.

Zillah

Schuhart wrote:

‘Roundest circle’ doesn’t strike me as subjective.

"Roundest circle" is indeed not subjective. However, "perfect circle" is. The subjective context for "perfect circle" is "roundest".



(Anal note: Technically of course there is only one kind of circle, what is casually refferred to as a "perfect circle". Anything else is another shape that appears like a circle but is revealed to have something other than the ideal shape. Ultimately a circle in the physical world is made of atoms so it isn't a single shape at all but a collection of particles... I wonder if one could construct a perfect circle using a cross section of an isolated electro magnetic field...? Or would that neccessitate another universe completely free of any other electro magnetic fields...? - I'm in a weird mood.)

Schuhart wrote:

I take it to basically mean , and as you say falls for the very reason that a three headed goat isn't Secretary General of the United Union of India and Serbia.

Hehe... Nor do I have the ability to set people on fire with my thoughts... But of course, I can't believe this is what Anselm was getting at. Its clear to anyone that they don't control reality with their imaginations.

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

aidan24326 wrote:

I don't accept that idea at all, it is patently not the case.

Again, this is essentially false. We can try the assumption that all fundamentalists are stupid or mendacious or insane, and we will rapidly run into the fact that it is simply not true

Of course I agree with you on that. By 'I don't accept that idea...' I meant the idea of all religious people being stupid, not that I didn't agree with you. My fault for poor wording.

Oh. OK.

aidan24326 wrote:

NOMA just conveniently shields religion from any questioning of the claims it makes. Religion invites scientific scrutiny by making claims that are provably false by scientific methods, and other claims that although not yet falsifiable (if ever) can still be shown to be very unlikely based on scientific evidence.
If religion only made claims about non-scientific matters such as morality and ethics, and stuck to those areas of human endeavour that are subjective and where religion may have as much to say as anyone else, then that would be fine. Then NOMA would hold.

But this is clearly not the case. The problem is that religion, particularly the RC Church, has something to say about bloody everything, even those things that are very obviously way outside it's scope. Matters of geology, cosmology, biology, human sexuality, disease, birth control etc etc they have a say on all of it, and 99.99% of the time they're way wrong. That makes it absolutely essential that people are made aware of the glaring inaccuracies in church teachings, and for that we have science. Religion cannot claim exemption from scientific scrutiny while it persists in encroaching into scientific territory.

That I fully agree with - it's why I waste time arguing with Creationists, whose claims are the most egregiously stupid example of the genre.

However, when religion does not make such absurd claims outside its remit, it remains unassailable by science.

aidan24326 wrote:

And btw, what are religion's competences? Dawkins, the subject of this thread, considers theology almost a non-subject, and I'm inclined to agree. I don't see what that subject can possibly add to human knowledge that can't a) be answered 100% better by science or b) dealt with by philosophy instead.

We will have a problem here. If we refuse any validity to the assumption that God exists, then the whole thing is entirely pointless. Such an assumption would, alas, be unscientific, so we should not make it (to cut a long argument short).

So, if we do not make that assumption, then religion has as much validity as it has utility. Its core competence is the ascription of meaning to the universe, something science is not capable of.

If religion has utility, and competence, in a field unapproachable by science, then NOMA holds very well.

aidan24326 wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

However, to repeat myself for the umpteenth time - why does religion have to be judged scientifically? Is democracy? Law? Justice? Charity? Literature? Is the judgement given in a case somehow "scientifically valid", or is the question meaningless? I think the question is meaningless - nevertheless, the atheist chooses to judge religion by scientific standards, because it lends a comforting aura of authority to his lack of belief

Law,Justice, and literature are not in the habit of making false claims to knowledge however. A court of law will call in professional scientific expertise where required. Religion on the other hand, doesn't need any help as they have all the answers already, you just have to consult the holy book.The question is meaningless for something like charity or democracy.

And meaningless for religion when it is not making claims to scientific judgement.

aidan24326 wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Unfortunately for the atheist, that very exclusion prevents science from making any meaningful judgement on the supernatural. The supernatural is "non-scientific", not because science has proven it to be false, but because science has chosen to assume it false

The supernatural is non-scientific by definition, though only while it remains unexplained. BUT, if science can't say much about that which is outside our realm of existence (or of current understanding) then I'm damned sure religion can't either. If there was some possibility of understanding the origins of the big bang (or whatever initiated our universe) who would you rather have working on the case? A bunch of theologians and bishops, or an assembly of the world's finest astrophysicists and cosmologists?

Certainly the latter, for my money - but then, I'm an atheist.

aidan24326 wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, one of the things we can learn from history is that almost every religion and political system through history, whether atheist or theist, has rounded up the same basic list of suspects - homosexuals, minorities (usually Jews), foreigners, women, perverts, etc etc. People just love to get their hate on - and the targets are usually the same. Religion is mostly irrelevant - if the US fundies weren't anti-gay for religious reasons, they'd be anti-gay for "social" or "political" reasons

I disagree with you that religion is irrelevant here. There is probably no more powerful tool for the dissemination of hatred and intolerance.

Any ideology will do, if believed fervently enough. While atheists are correct to reject the attribution of Stalin's atrocities, or Mao's, or Pol Pot's, to atheism, it is true that these men and their regimes did not disseminate their hatred and intolerance through religion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Sapien wrote:

Not at all. If one fornicates, steals or denies the existence of the Holy Spirit, one is sinning according to Christian rules, whether one is Christian or not. To "sin" according to the rules of science one must be engaged in the scientific process in some way, and going about it incorrectly.

Exactly.And if we claim that religion is "unscientific", and that the believer does not interpret evidence in the correctly scientific manner, when they have not set out to do so, are we not essentially making the same claim?

Sapien wrote:

A proscriptive moral code, an authoritative hierarchy and a canonical "received" text. These things are not more crucial in religion than worship, but distinguish religion from other forms of spirituality, which may also involve worship.

By which criterion we exclude all tribal religions (no book), Buddhism (no hierarchy), Shinto (no moral code, proscriptive or prescriptive - and no book).

Sapien wrote:

I don't know why you have shifted the discussion from "believe in God" to "passionate devotion". I would begin from the assumption that a religious person believes in God, rather than assuming the opposite. I don't see how the degree of passion with which they are devoted to that God comes into this.

This is one of these things where I have to go back and see what on earth I thought my point was, and yours.

I brought in the degree to which they feel religious fervour because of your reference to suicide bombers and evangelical pastors, who are hardly representative of the mass of the faithful.

Ah - I didn't intend to argue that the mass of the faithful didn't believe in God - only that they didn't examine their concept of God too closely. Most people's personal conception of their God is rarely a close match for the "official viewpoint".

Much the same goes for many tenets of the faith that people notionally hold to. Catholics, in theory, ought to be as anti-gay as fundamentalists - that is the theological position of their church.

So, while it appears that religious leaders have enormous clout on the world stage, much of it is illusory.

Sapien wrote:

I don't believe I did.

Blindly devout? Did I say that? Believe in God - yes. Why would I think otherwise?

Of what?

See clarifications of my ramblings, above. I think your definition of "religion" is rather suspect, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Talliesin

Scofflaw wrote:

This is what got the poor Pope into so much trouble. The Christian belief in a rational creator underpinned the birth of science - most other religions have an arbitrary god, rather than a rational one.

Nor do all brands of Christianity.
Of course just what is entailed by "rational" has itself changed through history. Attempts to deal with religion in a purely rational way have continually occurred and re-occurred, normally with the eventual conclusion that the two don't mix correctly.

The latest post-Enlightenment attempts at doing so have led to Fundamentalism which is to say treating the Christian Bible as a literal account, which has two logical conclusions to choose between - the sort of Christianity followed by Creationists or the kind of Atheism followed by Dawkins.

The two share many characteristics due to their similarity in origin. One of these is that they often view each other as the only form of Atheism and Christianity respectively, and also often view even themselves in this way. While members of both are capable of intellectually appreciating the fact that this is not the case they will still reflexively fall back into treating themselves and each other as the only Atheists and Christians (or even the only Atheists and Theists - sometimes so far as the only Atheists and Religious [discounting entirely religions like Buddhism which are ultimately Atheist]).

The are both evangelical. In the case of Fundamentalist Christianity this is partly building on an evangelicism inherent to Christianity before the birth of Fundamentalism and this is something that Western Atheism has partly inherited. However it is also got a new source from the fact that they had both attempted to move religous though to the purely logical.

If I am doing something clearly illogical in a logical realm, e.g. using arsenic as a condiment is illogical giving that applying logic to our knowledge of what arsenic does to the human body, you may well feel much more justified in criticising or even restraining me than if you disagreed with what colour I decided to paint my bedroom. Hence both Fundamentalist Christians and Counter-Fundamentalist Atheists feel much more justified in pushing their religious beliefs upon the rest of us, even to the point of attempting to have their position given greater legal protection than those of others.

Another similarity is the "silent majority" fallacy. It's common for people to over-estimate the popularity of their views (Think of the character in Martin Amis' The Information who, during John Major's regime, feels that "everyone is Labour, except the government") but Fundamentalism and Counter-Fundamentalism's shared rational self-image increases this effect.

Another similarity is the fear of art and other cultural phenomena. This is partly because art touches upon the mythological part of human thinking that both have rejected (while Atheists may think of Christian thinking as mythological its important to note that Fundamentalist Christian thinking is not mythological, because they have denied the mythological status of the bible - they have a history), though it can also be due to the messages of the art itself (or at least those they perceive it to hold).

Scofflaw wrote:

Having said that, it is probably true that we owe our concept of a rational God to Greek pagan philosophy and the Roman concepts of virtue - Christianity had to appear intellectually respectable against that competition, and mystery religions had a bad record, and worse press, in Rome.

More to the point I think is that Christianity sought a more complete role. One could undertake the Elusian mysteries and also be of the Platonic school. Christianity wanted to compete with both at the same time.

Scofflaw wrote:

This is why I have always countered the argument that Europe is primarily a Christian culture with the argument that we are a Graeco-Roman culture. The main value of Christianity was that it transmitted Graeco-Roman thought to the barbarian conquerors.

That was true up until the fall of the Roman Empire. It is the Muslims that have to be thanked for re-educating the West on Graeco-Roman culture.

Scofflaw wrote:

What about Mauss, as a matter of interest?

I know enough on the topic to know a good few cases where Frazer is demonstrably wrong. Like Dawkins I'm aware of the subject only were it applies to my religious interests. Unlike Dawkins I'm not proceeding from that to thinking I actually know much on the matter.

Sangre wrote:

By definition of atheism there can be no 'lot' whether his or ours. Its not really conceptually possible to lump a group of people together whose only common ground is they don't belief in a deity.

Of course it's possible. It's possible to group people on just about any basis.

Sangre wrote:

Of course this would be fair if this non-belief logically followed onto to something else like low morals but it doesn't.

Agreed. Would also apply if it followed onto high morals. I didn't say it was fair, I said Dawkins was guily of it. I would have no complaints if I thought it was fair (or even rational).

Sangre wrote:

The point regarding Stalin becomes even weaker because we have no idea what motivated his tyranny. If you can show that his line of thinking was 'I don't believe in God, therefore I'll send this lot to a Gualag' the point obviously stands but I think most would imagine it was 'I seek power, I will destroy my enemies by sending them to a Gualag'.

His philosophy was inherently Atheistic.

Of course this doesn't mean that all Atheists would do the same thing if they had the same power, but it does provide a counter against the genocides carried out in the name of religions, since not all Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. have carried out genocides either.

Sangre wrote:

Atheism, is just that, atheism. It contains no notions on morals or ethics (rather than it has no morals on ethics).

Nor does theisim, monotheism, polytheism, pantheism and so on. People may draw morals or ethics from a theistic basis, but that is also true of Atheism. Remember, we're not talking about Atheism as a whole here, we're talking about Dawkins' Atheism.

Sangre wrote:

While their acts don't invalidate the merits of religion they do weaken the arugement that religion is a passive, loving force for all and that it is only a beneficial element of society.

I've never heard that argument made by anyone. I've heard it argued that religion is often or even usually that, but I'm not particularly inclined to agree so I'm not going to defend that position.

Sapien wrote:

I think the differences between atrocities committed by people who happen to be atheists and those perpetrated in the name of a religion are clear, and have been made clear by Dawkins whenever he is met with that particular chestnut. If it weren't for the fact that Karl Marx had an obscure and relatively unimportant theory relating to religion, atheism would never have become so strongly associated with Marxist dogma, and would not have become such a prominent aspect of subsequent communist regimes. It was totalitarian nationalism, not atheism, that allowed Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to leave morality aside with such catastrophic effects, and totalitarian nationalism has a lot more in common with religion than atheism.

That can also be said of the atrocities made in the name of religion.

Sangre

Talliesin wrote:

Nor does theisim, monotheism, polytheism, pantheism and so on. People may draw morals or ethics from a theistic basis, but that is also true of Atheism. Remember, we're not talking about Atheism as a whole here, we're talking about Dawkins' Atheism.

Theism doesn't draw morals from its beliefs? What? A set of moral guidelines to obtain entrance into the afterlife is a cornerstone of *most* religions, especially monotheistic ones.

How does Dawkins draw his morals from his non-belief?

I won't comment on your other points I don't subscribe to the Dawkins 'passionate' brand of atheism either.

Talliesin

Sangre wrote:

Theism doesn't draw morals from its beliefs? What? A set of moral guidelines to obtain entrance into the afterlife is a cornerstone of *most* religions, especially monotheistic ones.

My morals are affected by my religious beliefs but not my theist beliefs. Though using myself as a counter-example doesn't address "especially monotheistic ones".

In the case of religion where one believes in either a single or a very small number of gods and hold that god is all good and as such the source of morality then this entails a belief-system where the morals follow from the theism. So here the theism is leading directly to the morality. Let's call this the first way theism can lead to morality.

However in a monotheistic view which supposes an aloof or even a hostile single creator-god, and these certainly exist especially the former, one does not extend to the other.

In between are cases where something is not deemed good because the good god morality insist on it, but as a wider aspect of how the believer deals with the divine. An example of this would be those rules in Judaism that Jews, as part of their covenant with their god, follow but which they do not expect a Righteous Gentile to follow. Hence there are aspects to the morality that do not follow directly from the theism but more widely from the rest of the belief system that theism is part of. Let's call this the second way theism can lead to morality.

As a polytheist though I can quite easily imagine one of my Gods wanting to do something that I would refuse to do because I considered it immoral. Once you have a belief system that allows for Gods not necessarily being in agreement with each other then you obviously lose the direct connection between the morality and the theism. This isn't even the second way mentioned in the previous paragraph because there is no connection between the Gods and my morality, even indirect.

Sangre wrote:

How does Dawkins draw his morals from his non-belief?

Well firstly, Dawkins doesn't have a non-belief, he asserts not that he doesn't believe in God, but that he believes there is no God.

He doesn't draw morals from this belief in the first way, but constantly in the second way in just about every way he suggests that we should, as a society, behave differently than we do.

As a different example of how morals can be taken from an Atheist view look at Marxism. The most important argument for Marxism rather than any other Communist view is not that the Revolution should happen, but that it will happen - based on Marx's philosophy of history in which the Revolution is inevitable, a philosophy which is inherently Atheist. This is quite a different matter to that of Marx's theory of what religion was doing at the time of his writing - the opiate of the masses was to him yet another part of a passing phase in the inevitable progress of history, that he saw no god existing in that inevitable progress is much more important to his philosophy. Since he draws inferences from the inevitable Revolution he predicted to how people should behave now he is another example of drawing morality from an atheist philosophy.

Yet another example would be Buddhism, which has an Atheist cosmology, but which draws its morality from reasoning about that cosmology.

Scofflaw

Talliesin wrote:

This is what got the poor Pope into so much trouble. The Christian belief in a rational creator underpinned the birth of science - most other religions have an arbitrary god, rather than a rational one.

Nor do all brands of Christianity.

That is true - but the main streams, and the majority, of Christianity, does.

Talliesin wrote:

Of course just what is entailed by "rational" has itself changed through history. Attempts to deal with religion in a purely rational way have continually occurred and re-occurred, normally with the eventual conclusion that the two don't mix correctly.

Well, I was talking about a rational God rather than a rational approach to religion. Catholicism has a rational God, but does not claim to be rational as such.

Talliesin wrote:

The latest post-Enlightenment attempts at doing so have led to Fundamentalism which is to say treating the Christian Bible as a literal account, which has two logical conclusions to choose between - the sort of Christianity followed by Creationists or the kind of Atheism followed by Dawkins.

Assuming you're saying that creationists claim that it is rational to be of their faith because the biblical account is historically true - I agree.

I'm not sure how Dawkinite atheism follows from that position. Do you mean that it assumes it is rational to be an atheist because the scientific view of the world is true?

Talliesin wrote:

The two share many characteristics due to their similarity in origin. One of these is that they often view each other as the only form of Atheism and Christianity respectively, and also often view even themselves in this way. While members of both are capable of intellectually appreciating the fact that this is not the case they will still reflexively fall back into treating themselves and each other as the only Atheists and Christians (or even the only Atheists and Theists - sometimes so far as the only Atheists and Religious [discounting entirely religions like Buddhism which are ultimately Atheist]).

Sure. They should get a room already.

Talliesin wrote:

The are both evangelical. In the case of Fundamentalist Christianity this is partly building on an evangelicism inherent to Christianity before the birth of Fundamentalism and this is something that Western Atheism has partly inherited. However it is also got a new source from the fact that they had both attempted to move religous though to the purely logical.

If I am doing something clearly illogical in a logical realm, e.g. using arsenic as a condiment is illogical giving that applying logic to our knowledge of what arsenic does to the human body, you may well feel much more justified in criticising or even restraining me than if you disagreed with what colour I decided to paint my bedroom. Hence both Fundamentalist Christians and Counter-Fundamentalist Atheists feel much more justified in pushing their religious beliefs upon the rest of us, even to the point of attempting to have their position given greater legal protection than those of others.

Yes, there's an ongoing attempt to justify things in terms of science.

Talliesin wrote:

Another similarity is the "silent majority" fallacy. It's common for people to over-estimate the popularity of their views (Think of the character in Martin Amis' The Information who, during John Major's regime, feels that "everyone is Labour, except the government") but Fundamentalism and Counter-Fundamentalism's shared rational self-image increases this effect.

Another similarity is the fear of art and other cultural phenomena. This is partly because art touches upon the mythological part of human thinking that both have rejected (while Atheists may think of Christian thinking as mythological its important to note that Fundamentalist Christian thinking is not mythological, because they have denied the mythological status of the bible - they have a history), though it can also be due to the messages of the art itself (or at least those they perceive it to hold).

A good point. I find it ironic, even as I argue with Creationists, that they ahve already accepted the primacy of science as a path to truth. They too have said in their hearts "there is no God if he can't be scientifically proven".

Talliesin wrote:

More to the point I think is that Christianity sought a more complete role. One could undertake the Elusian mysteries and also be of the Platonic school. Christianity wanted to compete with both at the same time.

To do which it needed to be intellectually respectable as well as spiritually satisfying.

Talliesin wrote:

That was true up until the fall of the Roman Empire. It is the Muslims that have to be thanked for re-educating the West on Graeco-Roman culture.

I can't quite agree with this. The retransmission of Graeco-Roman literature and philosophy into Europe was not done by the Muslims, although it could not have happened without them. They were interested in, and collected, Graeco-Roman thought from the areas they ruled (which included Greece and the Grecian Middle East), but certainly did not set out to transmit that to European barbarians.

Talliesin wrote:

I know enough on the topic to know a good few cases where Frazer is demonstrably wrong. Like Dawkins I'm aware of the subject only were it applies to my religious interests. Unlike Dawkins I'm not proceeding from that to thinking I actually know much on the matter.

It's a long time since I read the Golden Bough (or the Silver Bough, for that matter, not that the two are comparable works). I ask only because my brother gave me Mauss' General theory of Magic for Christmas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Zillah wrote:

"Roundest circle" is indeed not subjective. However, "perfect circle" is. The subjective context for "perfect circle" is "roundest".

Just giving another turn to the side issue, I still think there is a concept there. What you seem to be pointing to is an imprecision in language rather that the concept of perfection.

I might be unaware that your idea of what a perfect three headed goat is looks like an octopus. At one level, that represents different subjective understandings of what a goat is. But, standing outside of the situation, its certainly possible to conceive of both a perfect goat and a perfect octopus. All that's missing in the situation is a perfect language, perfectly understood by all participants.

'Perfect God' would indeed mean different things to different people, some of which might be contradictory. Hence the need on occassion to supply some description to qualify what precisely is in mind. But its still possible to envisage a perfect Old Testament God, say, and note how a jealous God who occassionally saw the funny side, particularly when the joke was on him, would be a less than perfect Jehovah.

Schuhart

Talliesin wrote:

Another similarity is the fear of art and other cultural phenomena. This is partly because art touches upon the mythological part of human thinking that both have rejected

Is this is a polite way of saying 'they can't handle that people follow religion because it provides a cultural backdrop to living that knits pretty well with their aspirations, and don't care too much if its strictly true'.

What's partly on my mind is an article in the Irish Times yesterday in response to some article they'd published before Christmas querying the historical accuracy of the nativity story. The response, by I think a couple of theologians from Milltown, was along the lines of 'sure, the story is not intended to be literally true. There likely was a birth, but all the rest of it is simply mythology created to inspire. Pretty good story, too, that's why its still so popular.'

Its just this aspect of religion makes the equation of 'fundementalist' atheism and theism problematic. Fundementalist theism is assigning to religion a status of truth that it simply doesn't possess. Its hard to see an equivalent for that in 'fundementalist' atheism. You can argue that Dawkins, to take the case in point, is over-relying on science to tell him everything. But that's very different to choosing, say, to believe the mythology of a particular faith is literally true when that cannot reasonably be maintained.

To be honest, I still think the real field of interest is in that mainstream area, where people follow a faith while, to a greater or lesser extent, accepting the small print doesn't really hang together.