John Gray's "The Atheist Delusion" - Irish Times 20th March

Myksyk

Interesting article by John Gray in the Irish Times today. In it he blasts Hitchens, Dawkins et al. On a very cursory read this morning it seems to make good and bad points in equal measure. Any comments?

Tim Robbins

Article:

JohnGray wrote:

OPINION: "Opposition to religion occupies the high ground, intellectually and morally," wrote Martin Amis recently. Over the past few years, leading writers and thinkers have published best-selling tracts against God. But the "secular fundamentalists" have got it all wrong, according to John Gray .

AN ATMOSPHERE of moral panic surrounds religion. Viewed not so long ago as a relic of superstition whose role in society was steadily declining, it is now demonised as the cause of many of the world's worst evils. As a result, there has been a sudden explosion in the literature of proselytising atheism. A few years ago, it was difficult to persuade commercial publishers even to think of bringing out books on religion. Today, tracts against religion can be enormous money-spinners, with Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great selling in the hundreds of thousands. For the first time in generations, scientists and philosophers, high-profile novelists and journalists are debating whether religion has a future. The intellectual traffic is not all one-way. There have been counterblasts for believers, such as The Dawkins Delusion? by the British theologian Alister McGrath and The Secular Age by the Canadian Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor. On the whole, however, the anti-God squad has dominated the sales charts, and it is worth asking why.

The abrupt shift in the perception of religion is only partly explained by terrorism. The 9/11 hijackers saw themselves as martyrs in a religious tradition, and western opinion has accepted their self-image. And there are some who view the rise of Islamic fundamentalism as a danger comparable with the worst that were faced by liberal societies in the 20th century. For Dawkins and Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Martin Amis, Michel Onfray, Philip Pullman and others, religion in general is a poison that has fuelled violence and oppression throughout history, right up to the present day. The urgency with which they produce their anti-religious polemics suggests that a change has occurred as significant as the rise of terrorism: the tide of secularisation has turned. These writers come from a generation schooled to think of religion as a throwback to an earlier stage of human development, which is bound to dwindle away as knowledge continues to increase. In the 19th century, when the scientific and industrial revolutions were changing society very quickly, this may not have been an unreasonable assumption. Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest may still believe that, over the long run, the advance of science will drive religion to the margins of human life, but this is now an article of faith rather than a theory based on evidence.

It is true that religion has declined sharply in a number of countries (Ireland is a recent example) and has not shaped everyday life for most people in Britain for many years. Much of Europe is clearly post-Christian. However, there is nothing that suggests the move away from religion is irreversible, or that it is potentially universal. The US is no more secular today than it was 150 years ago, when de Tocqueville was amazed and baffled by its all-pervading religiosity. The secular era was in any case partly illusory. The mass political movements of the 20th century were vehicles for myths inherited from religion, and it is no accident that religion is reviving now that these movements have collapsed. The current hostility to religion is a reaction against this turnabout. Secularisation is in retreat, and the result is the appearance of an evangelical type of atheism not seen since Victorian times.

As in the past, this is a type of atheism that mirrors the faith it rejects. Philip Pullman's Northern Lights - a subtly allusive, multilayered allegory, recently adapted into a Hollywood blockbuster, The Golden Compass - is a good example. Pullman's parable concerns far more than the dangers of authoritarianism. The issues it raises are essentially religious, and it is deeply indebted to the faith it attacks. Pullman has stated that his atheism was formed in the Anglican tradition, and there are many echoes of Milton and Blake in his work. His largest debt to this tradition is the notion of free will. The central thread of the story is the assertion of free will against faith. The young heroine, Lyra Belacqua, sets out to thwart the Magisterium - Pullman's metaphor for Christianity - because it aims to deprive humans of their ability to choose their own course in life, which she believes would destroy what is most human in them. But the idea of free will that informs liberal notions of personal autonomy is biblical in origin (think of the Genesis story). The belief that exercising free will is part of being human is a legacy of faith, and like most varieties of atheism today, Pullman's is a derivative of Christianity.

Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.

A curious feature of this kind of atheism is that some of its most fervent missionaries are philosophers. Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon claims to sketch a general theory of religion. In fact, it is mostly a polemic against American Christianity. This parochial focus is reflected in Dennett's view of religion, which for him means the belief that some kind of supernatural agency (whose approval believers seek) is needed to explain the way things are in the world. For Dennett, religions are efforts at doing something science does better - they are rudimentary or abortive theories, or else nonsense. "The proposition that God exists," he writes severely, "is not even a theory." But religions do not consist of propositions struggling to become theories. The incomprehensibility of the divine is at the heart of Eastern Christianity, while in Orthodox Judaism, practice tends to have priority over doctrine. Buddhism has always recognised that in spiritual matters truth is ineffable, as do Sufi traditions in Islam. Hinduism has never defined itself by anything as simplistic as a creed. It is only some western Christian traditions, under the influence of Greek philosophy, which have tried to turn religion into an explanatory theory.

The notion that religion is a primitive version of science was popularised in the late 19th century. The positivists believed that with the development of transport and communication irrational thinking would wither way, along with the religions of the past. Despite the history of the past century, Dennett believes much the same. In an interview that appears on the website of the Edge Foundation (edge.org) under the title The Evaporation of the Powerful Mystique of Religion , he predicts that "in about 25 years almost all religions will have evolved into very different phenomena, so much so that in most quarters religion will no longer command the awe that it does today". He is confident that this will come about, he tells us, mainly because of "the worldwide spread of information technology (not just the internet, but cell phones and portable radios and television)". The philosopher has evidently not reflected on the ubiquity of mobile phones among the Taliban, or the emergence of a virtual al-Qaeda on the web.

The growth of knowledge is a fact only postmodern relativists deny. Science is the best tool we have for forming reliable beliefs about the world, but it does not differ from religion by revealing a bare truth that religions veil in dreams. Both science and religion are systems of symbols that serve human needs - in the case of science, for prediction and control. Religions have served many purposes, but at bottom they answer to a need for meaning that is met by myth rather than explanation. A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into pseudo-science. Dennett's notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.

In The God Delusion , Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of religion in terms of the theory of "memes", vaguely defined conceptual units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection. He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education.

From a Darwinian standpoint, the crucial role Dawkins gives to education is puzzling. Human biology has not changed greatly over recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this. Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory, and I cannot help being reminded of the evangelical Christian who assured me that children reared in a chaste environment would grow up without illicit sexual impulses.

Dawkins's "memetic theory of religion" is a classic example of the nonsense that is spawned when Darwinian thinking is applied outside its proper sphere. Along with Dennett, who also holds to a version of the theory, Dawkins maintains that religious ideas survive because they would be able to survive in any "meme pool", or else because they are part of a "memeplex" that includes similar memes, such as the idea that, if you die as a martyr, you will enjoy 72 virgins. Unfortunately, the theory of memes is science only in the sense that Intelligent Design is science. Strictly speaking, it is not even a theory. Talk of memes is just the latest in a succession of ill-judged Darwinian metaphors.

Dawkins compares religion to a virus: religious ideas are memes that infect vulnerable minds, especially those of children. Biological metaphors may have their uses - the minds of evangelical atheists seem particularly prone to infection by religious memes, for example. At the same time, analogies of this kind are fraught with peril. Dawkins makes much of the oppression perpetrated by religion, which is real enough. He gives less attention to the fact that some of the worst atrocities of modern times were committed by regimes that claimed scientific sanction for their crimes. Nazi "scientific racism" and Soviet "dialectical materialism" reduced the unfathomable complexity of human lives to the deadly simplicity of a scientific formula. In each case, the science was bogus, but it was accepted as genuine at the time, and not only in the regimes in question. Science is as liable to be used for inhumane purposes as any other human institution. Indeed, given the enormous authority science enjoys, the risk of it being used in this way is greater.

Continued tomorrow

pH

Original article in the Guardian

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2265395,00.html

It's awful, but a very good example of the current batch of anti-atheist writing out there, a combination of bitterness, name-calling, appeals to authority, convoluted writing and wishful thinking.

Take his closing:

John Gray wrote:

The attempt to eradicate religion, however, only leads to it reappearing in grotesque and degraded forms. A credulous belief in world revolution, universal democracy or the occult powers of mobile phones is more offensive to reason than the mysteries of religion, and less likely to survive in years to come. Victorian poet Matthew Arnold wrote of believers being left bereft as the tide of faith ebbs away. Today secular faith is ebbing, and it is the apostles of unbelief who are left stranded on the beach.

Does that actually mean anything? If anyone can understand that perhaps you could paraphrase it for me! Is he really saying that everyone has to believe in one dumb thing, and he's sure somehow the 'mysteries of religion' are good to believe in, yet he's somehow sure that mobile phones don't have occult powers.

Utter nonsense.

Whispered

Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.

This is something I have been wondering about for a while, and have commented on occasionally. Most of the people here are great and I really enjoy the conversations but there are some posts where I'd read and think "what makes you so different from religious fanatics, you are shouting about how your way of thinking is the only correct way, much as every holy book in existance does"

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote:

This is something I have been wondering about for a while, and have commented on occasionally. Most of the people here are great and I really enjoy the conversations but there are some posts where I'd read and think "what makes you so different from religious fanatics, you are shouting about how your way of thinking is the only correct way, much as every holy book in existance does"

The difference is that we could be wrong

Dawkins can (and has been) wrong, Harris can (and has been) wrong. Wicknight can (and has been) wrong.

Expression of ideas is not the problem. Expression of ideas with unquestioning devotion to those ideas because of who said them is the problem.

Dawkins believes he is right, but I would imagine he would he horrified if someone accepted what he said simply because he was Richard Dawkins, rather than because he had, through his arguments, convinced you that he was in fact right.

Which is why he rights long books attempting to explain his position rather than short declarations to be taken as fact.

I find it really peculiar that theists such as Gray really miss this central point. Discussion is not the problem, the expression of ideas is not the problem.

Rev Hellfire

pH wrote: »

Does that actually mean anything? If anyone can understand that perhaps you could paraphrase it for me! Is he really saying that everyone has to believe in one dumb thing, and he's sure somehow the 'mysteries of religion' are good to believe in, yet he's somehow sure that mobile phones don't have occult powers.

Utter nonsense.

I believe that when he refers to the 'occult powers' powers of the mobile phone he refers to the popular athiest belief that religion will be defeated and vanquished through the use of modern mass communication technologies such as the internet, mobiles etc.

pH

helena.ryan wrote: »

This is something I have been wondering about for a while, and have commented on occasionally. Most of the people here are great and I really enjoy the conversations but there are some posts where I'd read and think "what makes you so different from religious fanatics, you are shouting about how your way of thinking is the only correct way, much as every holy book in existance does"

Now that's funny. This is an internet discussion board about atheism, and while I admit that many of us do believe that our way of thinking is correct, there is a huge difference between us and a religious fanatic.

• While we believe that our way of thinking is correct, I have never seen a poster here call for legal or social bans on believing in God or public worship. Look around the world - religious fanatics are very quick to look for bans, laws, executions when their beliefs are mocked or criticised.
  
• As far as I know, posters here are not going door to door trying to convert people to atheism. We don't boycott funerals, turn up outside churches and harangue mass-goers.
  
• We don't have organisations that try to control members lives with petty rules. We don't oppress women, we don't expend time and effort in the attempted persecution of homosexuals.

For example, many religious fanatics in the US are very attached to the words "In God we trust" appearing on their currency, I don't know, it must kind of bless their spending I guess. And while I know that many atheists find it distasteful and would prefer it removed, none as far as I know what it replaced with "There's no God you fool".

I could go on, but I think by now you should get the general picture. We post on a bulletin board, and you can't see a difference between us and 'religious fanatics', which says a lot about you seeing exactly what you want to see.

As for Gray's original comment, it's more ludicrous than yours, "Zealous Atheism" seems to consist of a soon to retire evolutionary biologist, and an alcoholic writer - he's whining about 2 men who WROTE A COUPLE OF BOOKS - as opposed to "Zealous theism" - i.e. the entire might of the world's organised religions - Catholicism, Islam, Fundamental Protestantism, Zionism, who have more than a couple of books, who have huge organisations, huge money-raising capabilities, control over their adherents lives, legal protections, tax exemptions, and vile histories of abuse, repression, terror, and torture.

Whispered

Wicknight wrote: »

Dawkins believes he is right, but I would imagine he would he horrified if someone accepted what he said simply because he was Richard Dawkins, rather than because he had, through his arguments, convinced you that he was in fact right.

Which is why he rights long books attempting to explain his position rather than short declarations to be taken as fact.

.

Yes I agree, I have a lot of respect for athiesm, I do believe it is one of the more logical ways of looking at things. What I mean is the people who will say "you are foolish" etc yet have probably never looked any further into athiesm than a few random thoughts. Which they believe gives them the authority to stand on their soapbox and declare their way of thinking as the only correct way. Perhaps it is, but then again how would they know. They are simply jumping on the bandwagon. Athiesm which is willing to evolve is great, as is religion which is willing to evolve, political views, moral values etc. Unfortunately all of these groups have people who will insist on their way being the only way.

Whispered

pH wrote: »

I could go on, but I think by now you should get the general picture. We post on a bulletin board, and you can't see a difference between us and 'religious fanatics', which says a lot about you seeing exactly what you want to see.

.

I did not direct anything at you personally PH, please do not make comments about me or how i think. I think most people here who have spoken to me at any stage will agree that I tend to take a very very open view.
I see posts here which to me seem as ridiculous and as "fact based" as the teachings of some religions. I am an intelligent person, because I believe in something you don't does that automatically make me stupid? You are a good person, because you don't believe in a christian god does that automatically condem you to hell? Of course not, but people from both camps would have you believe that is the case.

Tim Robbins

helena.ryan wrote: »

Yes I agree, I have a lot of respect for athiesm, I do believe it is one of the more logical ways of looking at things. What I mean is the people who will say "you are foolish" etc yet have probably never looked any further into athiesm than a few random thoughts. Which they believe gives them the authority to stand on their soapbox and declare their way of thinking as the only correct way. Perhaps it is, but then again how would they know. They are simply jumping on the bandwagon. Athiesm which is willing to evolve is great, as is religion which is willing to evolve, political views, moral values etc. Unfortunately all of these groups have people who will insist on their way being the only way.

I find a lot of atheists extremly annoying. Any reasonable, compassionate atheist would surely:
1. Consider that religion may exist to help people cope with death, heart break, stress, humdrum life, mild depression.
2. Consider the simple question:
Is it better that someone enages in religion and finds on outlets for these dilemas or suffers them so that their outlook in life is more logical?
3. Or consider this simple question:
Amist a fantasy hypotheisis, most religions have some sort of moral framework a lot of which any ethical person would commend. Now you don't need religion to be moral, but if it helps morally weak people behave with more moral responsibility with little cost to the tax payer, surely it is a net benefit to society.
4. Yes extreme fundamentalism is extremly annoying, a threat to society, scientific progression and world saftey. But mild religion is not. We would be better off making an alliance with mild religion to get rid of extreme fundamentalism.

Dawkins would be better off making an alliance with all religious people who accept Darwinian evolution and this would really show how stupid the fundies are.

Right now, I am beginning to get very skeptical of Dawins, Hitchens brigade. They are just shouting the same mantra and are reaping in the €€€ and the $$$.

If a reasonable, liberal Church got that money. Poor people would at least get some of it.

Do we want a compassionate world or everyone knowing the rebuttal to the ontological argument?

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

What I mean is the people who will say "you are foolish" etc yet have probably never looked any further into athiesm than a few random thoughts. Which they believe gives them the authority to stand on their soapbox and declare their way of thinking as the only correct way. Perhaps it is, but then again how would they know. They are simply jumping on the bandwagon. Athiesm which is willing to evolve is great, as is religion which is willing to evolve, political views, moral values etc.

Well yes but the problem with religion is that it either

a) unwilling to evolve due to the reliance on a supernatural authority that is supposed to be always correct or

b) does evolve and become rather pointless because of that fact (it could be argued that a religion that changes it's supernatural proclamations simply demonstrates that they haven't a clue about their proclamations in the first place).

You have hit on the one of the key objections to religion in the first place. I have no objections to a religion that is willing to evolve or change its doctrine, but then I would wonder why it is a "religion" at all, since in doing so it loses one of the key points of a religion, one of the key attractions, the claim to authoritatively declare truths about the universe.

Whispered

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes but the problem with religion is that it either

a) unwilling to evolve due to the reliance on a supernatural authority that is supposed to be always correct or

b) does evolve and become rather pointless because of that fact (it could be argued that a religion that changes it's supernatural proclamations simply demonstrates that they haven't a clue about their proclamations in the first place).

You have hit on the one of the key objections to religion in the first place. I have no objections to a religion that is willing to evolve or change its doctrine, but then I would wonder why it is a "religion" at all, since in doing so it loses one of the key points of a religion, one of the key attractions, the claim to authoritatively declare truths about the universe.

Absolutely agree - there are people who pick and choose what they want from different religions. I personally think you can learn a lot of the teachings of some religions if you filter out the bull. This is not really considered a religion though is it. Like if I don't believe in god, but do appreciate some of teachings from various religions, what does that make me?

What about the type of athiest who gives athiests in general a bad name. As I have said time and again (I try to be careful about what I say as I know you'll pick it apart ) most people here are thoughtful and have proper discussions. Surely it annoys you to see pig ignorant people, insulting other people in the name of athiesm? Much the same as it annoys me to see religious or spiritual wackos telling you you'll go to hell because you don't believe. I feel like they are giving "normal" spiritual a bad name. I'm probably not making myself very clear but to put it in a very hippyish way - wouldn't it be nice if the people who tell you you're going to hell or tell me I am of lower intelligence would just shut up and allow us to see what we can learn from each other.

Cactus Col

Wicknight wrote: »

The difference is that we could be wrong

For a lot of people on here that's an intellectual lie. It is a statement that says, I consider all sides of an argument before I make a decision. If you show me some proof, some evidence that I have not considered previously then, of course, I shall have to come to a new conclusion. It is to say "I have considered the possibility of a God, and I have found no strong evidence of such"


Very few atheists on here could ever say that when doing "research" they have done more than look for other people's arguments to support their own beliefs. They have done very little to question their own beliefs, or the validity of many of the arguments they use, yet alone made any real consideration into the possibility of a god.

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

Absolutely agree - there are people who pick and choose what they want from different religions. I personally think you can learn a lot of the teachings of some religions if you filter out the bull. This is not really considered a religion though is it. Like if I don't believe in god, but do appreciate some of teachings from various religions, what does that make me?

An atheist

There is a difference between going "Umm, that is a good idea" and going "Umm that is a good idea because it comes from God, an authority we must obey"

It is the last bit that is the problem. There is a lot of good advice in religious teachings. That isn't the point. The problem is the supernatural higher authority bit. Remove that and "religion" is simply philosophy, humans discussing human things that come from other humans.

helena.ryan wrote: »

What about the type of athiest who gives athiests in general a bad name.

Well one could equally say "what about the type of human who gives humans a bad name"

The focus on individuals is a throw back to religious thinking, where the authority of the individual (Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad) was very important. To me the ideas are what are important, not the person who spouts them. A good idea from a child molester is still a good idea.

If Dawkins has a good idea, or any idea that he convinces me is a good idea, I will agree it is a good idea. If he has a bad idea then it is a bad idea.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Surely it annoys you to see pig ignorant people, insulting other people in the name of athiesm?

Pig ignorant people insulting other people in the name of anything annoys me.

But at the end of the day you can't really stop people being pig ignorant. Saying that if I see someone, theist or atheist, saying something stupid I will normally comment, and I've had almost as many "heated debates" (ie arguments) on this thread with atheists as on the theists threads.

Equally though I think the (increasingly common) charge that all these atheists writing books and going on talk shows are just as fundamentalist and ignorant and intolerant as the religions they complain about is rather unthoughtful out knee jerk self-defense mechanism on the part of theists who feel genuinely annoyed about the rather loud voice atheists have found in the last few years.

One of the oldest debating tricks in the book is to make your opponent out as a hypocrite so you can then ignore what he is saying. I think this is a rather childish way to counter the very real and valid arguments people make about religion. As I said it is the ideas that are important, not really the people saying them.

helena.ryan wrote: »

allow us to see what we can learn from each other.

Well that is a little self indulgent. To assume that we have a lot to learn from the supernatural assumes that all these things, gods, fairies, ghosts, spirits, etc are real. I don't feel that much need to humor people who believe these things in the hope that they will give me some stunning insight into the supernatural.

There is a certain level of minimum discourse, below which you are just discussing the ins and outs of a persons superstitions and imagination.

Dades

Cactus Col wrote: »

Very few atheists on here could ever say that when doing "research" they have done more than look for other people's arguments to support their own beliefs.

You can't expect anyone to become a biologist or a cosmologists - but you can expect people to read the works of such people, and I would imagine most posters here have done that.

Isn't it better to base what you believe on what hundreds of years of science suggests, rather than one of a hundred ancient holy books?

Cactus Col wrote: »

They have done very little to question their own beliefs, or the validity of many of the arguments they use, yet alone made any real consideration into the possibility of a god.

Most people here are ex-believers, so I'm not sure what you're basing this on.

Cactus Col

Dades wrote: »

You can't expect anyone to become a biologist or a cosmologists - but you can expect people to read the works of such people, and I would imagine most posters here have done that.

Isn't it better to base what you believe on what hundreds of years of science suggests, rather than one of a hundred ancient holy books?

I agree ... what I'm saying is that a lot of posters on here haven't even gone so far as to read books by biologists or cosmologists, rather, they have limited their reading to books by Atheist writers such as Dawkins and Hitchins, or whoever (or is that whomever?) is the flavour of the day.

They have based their truths not on cold science, but on the the arguments of these writers.

Dades wrote: »

Most people here are ex-believers, so I'm not sure what you're basing this on.

While most people may have been brought up in religion, that's not the same as being an ex-believer.

But you're right, I did make too general a statement there, and it wasn't really what I wanted to say. (I have a tendancy to muddy my own arguments!) ... I'll rewrite what I was trying to say if I can make it clear

Whispered

Few quick points

Wicknight wrote: »

An atheist .

I dont believe in God, but would hardly consider myself athiest. So I am confused about what I am

Wicknight wrote: »

It is the last bit that is the problem. There is a lot of good advice in religious teachings. That isn't the point. The problem is the supernatural higher authority bit. Remove that and "religion" is simply philosophy, humans discussing human things that come from other humans.

Well perhaps thats where I am going wrong in considering myself a non-athiest, because I have always seen religion as a philosophy. I think it is very important to seperate religion from beliefs though. I am pretty anti religion, but have some strong beliefs at the same time.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well one could equally say "what about the type of human who gives humans a bad name"

Yes I see your point, but when a non-athiest makes a comment which is totally ridic I cringe because I know that that sort of stupidity will be used against other theists - like the fairy comment - who ever said they believe in fairies?? I don't believe in fairies so not a relevant arguement when talking to me. So what I mean is, when you see an athiest being unreasonable doesn't it cross your mind that he might be making athiests in general look unreasonable. That was my opinion before I came here, due to a couple of athiests who like to hang around other forums ridiculing people. One went so far as to sent me a private message which was extremly upsetting. I know I was wrong to base my opinion on these few people but I did and other people probably do the same. These athiests give others a bad name the same way as crackpot fanatics give religion a bad name.

Equally though I think the (increasingly common) charge that all these atheists writing books and going on talk shows are just as fundamentalist and ignorant and intolerant as the religions they complain about is rather unthoughtful out knee jerk self-defense mechanism on the part of theists who feel genuinely annoyed about the rather loud voice atheists have found in the last few years.

One of the oldest debating tricks in the book is to make your opponent out as a hypocrite so you can then ignore what he is saying. I think this is a rather childish way to counter the very real and valid arguments people make about religion. As I said it is the ideas that are important, not really the people saying them.

No I don't mean all of them at all, I actually said I have a lot of respect for athiesm, and the thought process behind it. As for making them look like hypocrites, I believe some of them are. This does not make the arguements of true athiests any less relevant. There are some which are as bad in that they segregate into believers and non believers. Thinking themselves better. A common thing among some religions (and indeed some races).

The focus on individuals is a throw back to religious thinking, where the authority of the individual (Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad) was very important. To me the ideas are what are important, not the person who spouts them. A good idea from a child molester is still a good idea.

Buddhism is not really a religion, buddha is not a god. (this is to the best of my knowledge, correct me if I am wrong)

Well that is a little self indulgent. To assume that we have a lot to learn from the supernatural assumes that all these things, gods, fairies, ghosts, spirits, etc are real. I don't feel that much need to humor people who believe these things in the hope that they will give me some stunning insight into the supernatural.

There is a certain level of minimum discourse, below which you are just discussing the ins and outs of a persons superstitions and imagination

I like to be self indulgent, it's one of the best things about being a girl

I don't assume they are real at all, I assume that we don't knw everything there is to know about the world and that a lot of "supernatural" things have very natural causes. I wouldn't expect you to gain a stunning insight into the supernatural from me, perhaps someone who believes in gods fairies and ghosts can do that for you There is a difference between supernatural and unexplained. Or impossible and unexplained.

The learning from each other I mean is theists could learn a lot from the logical thinking of athiesm, while athiesm could learn a lot from the philosophy of some religions (without having to believe in the god)

Hero Of College

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I find a lot of atheists extremly annoying. Any reasonable, compassionate atheist would surely:
1. Consider that religion may exist to help people cope with death, heart break, stress, humdrum life, mild depression.
2. Consider the simple question:
Is it better that someone enages in religion and finds on outlets for these dilemas or suffers them so that their outlook in life is more logical?
3. Or consider this simple question:
Amist a fantasy hypotheisis, most religions have some sort of moral framework a lot of which any ethical person would commend. Now you don't need religion to be moral, but if it helps morally weak people behave with more moral responsibility with little cost to the tax payer, surely it is a net benefit to society.
4. Yes extreme fundamentalism is extremly annoying, a threat to society, scientific progression and world saftey. But mild religion is not. We would be better off making an alliance with mild religion to get rid of extreme fundamentalism.

Dawkins would be better off making an alliance with all religious people who accept Darwinian evolution and this would really show how stupid the fundies are.

Right now, I am beginning to get very skeptical of Dawins, Hitchens brigade. They are just shouting the same mantra and are reaping in the €€€ and the $$$.

If a reasonable, liberal Church got that money. Poor people would at least get some of it.

Do we want a compassionate world or everyone knowing the rebuttal to the ontological argument?

Arthur C Clarke, who died only yesterday, used to have a series about paranormal experiences. As a scientist first and foremost, he tried to find rational explanation for things such as moving statues, weeping statues, visions etc. In conclusion, he felt that as science provided no conclusive answers itself, and given that the belief in the divine provided people with relief and solace, that it really didn't matter whether any of this belief in God was justified or not. It served a purpose- a purpose which Science in itself could not provide.

JC 2K3

Cactus Col wrote: »

Very few atheists on here could ever say that when doing "research" they have done more than look for other people's arguments to support their own beliefs. They have done very little to question their own beliefs, or the validity of many of the arguments they use, yet alone made any real consideration into the possibility of a god.

What's a God?

If anyone could explain the concept to me in a clear, logical manner, then I might consider believing. Until that time I shall continue to wonder what the hell people are on about when they speak of a "God".

helena.ryan wrote: »

I dont believe in God, but would hardly consider myself athiest. So I am confused about what I am

You are an atheist.

Now I'm sorry if you don't like the term because it makes you sound closed minded, uncaring or whatever,but it's what you are. Not believing in a god = atheism. Now you can still believe in whatever else you like; fairies, goblins, spirits, invisable pink unicorns or whatever, but as long as you don't believe in a god, you're an atheist.

The thing is though, atheism isn't a religion, it's not the only word you can use to describe yourself. You can be a "Spiritual Atheist"(whatever the hell that means), a Buddhist and an Atheist etc.

helena.ryan wrote: »

The learning from each other I mean is theists could learn a lot from the logical thinking of athiesm, while athiesm could learn a lot from the philosophy of some religions (without having to believe in the god)

Atheism can learn nothing, it's not a religion, it's not a belief system, it's the concept of not believing in a god. Individual atheists can make up their minds what philosophy they accept or don't, and they can be completely different people with completely different beliefs, the only common thing about those beliefs being that they don't include a god.

robindch

Hero Of College wrote: »

given that the belief in the divine provided people with relief and solace, that it really didn't matter whether any of this belief in God was justified or not. It served a purpose - a purpose which Science in itself could not provide.

Religion bangs on about "Truth" more than anything else. As such, saying that the truth doesn't matter leaves you with a foot full of bullets.

Dades

Cactus Col wrote: »

They have based their truths not on cold science, but on the the arguments of these writers.

To be honest with you the arguments of these writers only affirmed what I believed from looking out my window. That we live in a chaotic world that shows no sign whatsoever of being influenced by a benevolent (or not) deity. I stopped believing in gods long before I picked up Carl Sagan. Sure, some (younger?) posters here may be more influenced by them, but there isn't only one road to disbelief.

Cactus Col wrote: »

While most people may have been brought up in religion, that's not the same as being an ex-believer.

But you're right, I did make too general a statement there, and it wasn't really what I wanted to say. (I have a tendancy to muddy my own arguments!) ... I'll rewrite what I was trying to say if I can make it clear

Go for it.

Whispered

JC 2K3 wrote: »

You are an atheist.

Now I'm sorry if you don't like the term because it makes you sound closed minded, uncaring or whatever,but it's what you are.

I don't like the term but please don't put words into my mouth - I have never said that being athiest makes you anything but athiest. I also hate the term theist btw.

Atheism can learn nothing, it's not a religion, it's not a belief system, it's the concept of not believing in a god. Individual atheists can make up their minds what philosophy they accept or don't, and they can be completely different people with completely different beliefs, the only common thing about those beliefs being that they don't include a god.

I accept that, athiesm is not a movement of any type, there are no athiest groups or "orders" no set of rules etc but in fairness many athiests have the similar beliefs in most things. So do you think athiests as individuals can learn from the philosophy behind some religions?

Cactus Col

JC 2K3 wrote: »

What's a God?

If anyone could explain the concept to me in a clear, logical manner, then I might consider believing. Until that time I shall continue to wonder what the hell people are on about when they speak of a "God".

Not one of Dades' ex-believers so?

Dades wrote: »

To be honest with you the arguments of these writers only affirmed what I believed from looking out my window. That we live in a chaotic world that shows no sign whatsoever of being influenced by a benevolent (or not) deity. I stopped believing in gods long before I picked up Carl Sagan. Sure, some (younger?) posters here may be more influenced by them, but there isn't only one road to disbelief.

Absolutely. But that's the danger too, as you've said, Dawkins et al can all be wrong, and have been wrong, but there are people who treat them as modern day prophets, and just parrot their words without any real thought as to whats' behind them.

Dades wrote: »

Go for it.

Nah

Dave!

helena.ryan wrote: »

So do you think athiests as individuals can learn from the philosophy behind some religions?

Of course they can..... "Love thy neighbour" is a fairly nice thing to take on board. "Thou shalt not kill" is a good 'un. I'm not familiar with the teachings of Islam, but I'm sure there's alot of good parts to it. At the same time atheists as individuals can choose to disregard the less cuddly aspects of religions. I'm not into chauvinism or insulting homosexuals or killing infidels.

I can take lessons from anything I like! Have you read 'To Kill a Mockingbird' by Harper Lee? It's one of my favourite books ever! If you take on board what Atticus says, you'll go far in life. At the same time you'll have to sift through all the racist crap that's in it.

The reason we can do this is because our morality is seperate from the books and the religions. So of course I can learn from the philosophy behind some religions. I can choose to take on board only the bad stuff if I like! The source is irrelevent; Barney is full of good lessons -- who needs religion?!

Dades

Cactus Col wrote: »

Absolutely. But that's the danger too, as you've said, Dawkins et al can all be wrong, and have been wrong, but there are people who treat them as modern day prophets, and just parrot their words without any real thought as to whats' behind them.

Better to parrot the words of scientists than bronze age tribesmen, I say!

I kind of get what you are saying about taking what one side says for granted, but tbh what is the alternative if you believe what the 'other side' has to say holds no logical weight whatsoever?

Whispered

DaveMcG wrote: »

Of course they can.....

Yes I know but I was just clearing up what I meant by the post that was quoted.

DaveMcG wrote: »

I'm not into chauvinism or insulting homosexuals or killing infidels.

Really - oh well ALL of the christians I know happen to do all of those things :rolleyes:

DaveMcG wrote: »

I can take lessons from anything I like! Have you read 'To Kill a Mockingbird' by Harper Lee? It's one of my favourite books ever! If you take on board what Atticus says, you'll go far in life. At the same time you'll have to sift through all the racist crap that's in it.

No I didn't but I will. I never picked it up as I think it might have been on the school curriculum so hence became a "school book"..........

DaveMcG wrote: »

The reason we can do this is because our morality is seperate from the books and the religions. So of course I can learn from the philosophy behind some religions. I can choose to take on board only the bad stuff if I like! The source is irrelevent; Barney is full of good lessons -- who needs religion?!

Barney is awful! And had my lil sis talking in a fake american nasal way when she was younger.

Yes our morality is seperate - for most people. And while we dont need religion, I think aspects of it can enhance your life. Community, support, fundraising, hope etc (I am ultimately anti-religion, but can see their merits).

Whispered

Dades wrote: »

but tbh what is the alternative if you believe what the 'other side' has to say

Dades admited that the "other side" exists

Dades

helena.ryan wrote: »

Dades admited that the "other side" exists

Aarrgh! Next thing I'll be watching "Most Haunted"...

Cactus Col

Dades wrote: »

Better to parrot the words of scientists than bronze age tribesmen, I say!

I kind of get what you are saying about taking what one side says for granted, but tbh what is the alternative if you believe what the 'other side' has to say holds no logical weight whatsoever?

Oh, trust me, I'm not defending the "other side". They can do that themselves. It just seems that so many people on here argue that people should think for themselves, but provide no proof that they follow their own advice. or something.

stereoroid

When I see a writer using religious language to describe the non-religious - e.g. "acolytes", "atheist tracts" - I can come to some immediate and definitive conclusions about the writer:

• Biased: their choice of words betrays their lack of objectivity;
• Lazy: all these journos do it, and they all think they're being smart;
• Doomed: yes, smart readers can spot what they're up to, and see through the "spin".

It's the kind of thing that gets real old, real quickly. :rolleyes:

The funniest part is his implication that memetic theory is some new idea that Dawkins thought up for the purpose of attacking religion. Talk about not doing your homework...

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

I dont believe in God, but would hardly consider myself athiest. So I am confused about what I am

That reminds me of that joke, can't remember who it is by

My parents were perfectly happy with the idea of me not believing in God, but when I told them I was an atheist that was too far

The point of the joke is of course than an atheist is simply someone who doesn't accept gods or theistic belief as being real.

If you don't believe in God you are an atheist. Nothing more, nothing less.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Well perhaps thats where I am going wrong in considering myself a non-athiest, because I have always seen religion as a philosophy. I think it is very important to seperate religion from beliefs though. I am pretty anti religion, but have some strong beliefs at the same time.

Religion is simply the organisation of a set of supernatural beliefs into a structured belief system that is shared and taught among followers through a set of rituals and doctrine. Most, but not all, religions have the concept of a higher supernatural authority that dictates the doctrine of the religion to the followers.

helena.ryan wrote: »

So what I mean is, when you see an athiest being unreasonable doesn't it cross your mind that he might be making athiests in general look unreasonable.

Well its more that I don't have any strong views on atheists being unreasonable or stupid. What I mean by that is that atheism isn't supposed to make you not be unreasonable or stupid, so if an atheist is being unreasonable I wouldn't be surprised or upset by the fact that he is an atheist.

One can only let the side down if there is a side in the first place

helena.ryan wrote: »

These athiests give others a bad name the same way as crackpot fanatics give religion a bad name.

Well I understand your point, but at the same time I think that slightly belittles the valid arguments against religion. I don't attack religious nut jobs (that is far too easy), but I would attack the religious systems that the nut job and the quiet pastor share.

As I said in an earlier post there is too much focus on the individual (some people are just nuts), and equally this gives religion a sort of get out of jail clause, because people can say "Well I understand why you object to that fanatic, but I'm not like that" when in fact they often share very similar ideas that are common in most religious faith, mainstream or fanatical.

helena.ryan wrote: »

As for making them look like hypocrites, I believe some of them are.

Some of them may well be, but the point is that that is actually irrelevant to their points.

For example (taking something from the news) if a person says it is wrong to cheat on your wife with (very) expensive prostitutes, and is then caught doing exactly that, he is obviously a big hypocrite. But that doesn't actually mean that it therefore isn't wrong to cheat on your wife with $1000 an hour hookers.

Even if Dawkins is the biggest hypocrite in the world his ideas should still be judged on their own worth.

The reason, I suspect, that some theists love to charge Dawkins and Harris with hypocrisy is that they know they actually make rather strong convincing arguments, and the rather actually try and show they are wrong (which is hard) they spout a serious of charges of being just as bad as what they complain about. It is debatable if that is true, but it is also largely irrelevant to their arguments.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Buddhism is not really a religion, buddha is not a god. (this is to the best of my knowledge, correct me if I am wrong)

Well that is a long debate. Some view Buddhism as a religion because of the inclusion of some supernatural beliefs, others view it more as a philosophy as the supernatural beliefs are not central.

helena.ryan wrote: »

The learning from each other I mean is theists could learn a lot from the logical thinking of athiesm, while athiesm could learn a lot from the philosophy of some religions (without having to believe in the god)

Well that is certainly true, a lot of religions have themes that certainly have value and worth as moral guides.