Darwin Program - Does Dawkins annoy you?

sdep

kelly1 wrote: »

Good point sdep. He's supposed to be a scientist but yet he seems to spend most of his public time ranting about the absurdity of faith in God. Didn't he call religion a virus. He's not just an atheist, he's an anti-theist. His bias is all too apparent.

There's plenty of room in the public square for an Atheist-in-Chief. I just find it unfortunate that the current title-holder should also be the public face of evolutionary biology.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Didn't he call religion a virus.

You missed the point of the virus analogy which refers to its ability to propagate itself, not any intimation that it's destructive. He also applies the virus analogy to plenty of other things including music, jokes, language, architecture, culture and so on.

kelly1 wrote: »

He's not just an atheist, he's an anti-theist.

No, he's not an anti-theist. He's anti-religion, same as most of us atheists are.

robindch

sdep wrote: »

I just find it unfortunate that the current title-holder should also be the public face of evolutionary biology.

It's certainly not ideal, but given that many of the most vociferous religionists are also vociferous creationists, the doubling-up is understandable.

sdep

robindch wrote: »

It's certainly not ideal, but given that many of the most vociferous religionists are also vociferous creationists, the doubling-up is understandable.

Maybe we should anoint AC Grayling instead and give philosophers a bad name for a change.

Fanny Cradock

sdep wrote: »

Maybe we should anoint AC Grayling instead and give philosophers a bad name for a change.

Ugh, that bore. He should change the record and get a hair cut.

Fanny Cradock

sdep wrote: »

Following on, and at risk of staying on topic, I still have my concerns after watching the series.

Dawkins discussing Darwin is fine by me. Dawkins questioning the basis of religion is fine by me. But why can't he keep them separate? Why does he go baiting Beardy Williams on the validity of the Virgin Birth and the resurrection of Lazarus when the programme is meant to be about Darwin? Why does he read out his religiously-themed hate mail? If there is any connection to Darwin's life and theory, it wasn't made.

The danger is that people are left with the impression that Darwinian evolution specifically contradicts the articles of their religious faith. This is the exact same argument made by Creationists. It may lead some to abandon their faith; it causes others to reject evolution. Better to serve up your Darwin straight and leave theology for another day.

Well said

AtomicHorror

sdep wrote: »

Following on, and at risk of staying on topic, I still have my concerns after watching the series.

Dawkins discussing Darwin is fine by me. Dawkins questioning the basis of religion is fine by me. But why can't he keep them separate? Why does he go baiting Beardy Williams on the validity of the Virgin Birth and the resurrection of Lazarus when the programme is meant to be about Darwin? Why does he read out his religiously-themed hate mail? If there is any connection to Darwin's life and theory, it wasn't made.

The danger is that people are left with the impression that Darwinian evolution specifically contradicts the articles of their religious faith. This is the exact same argument made by Creationists. It may lead some to abandon their faith; it causes others to reject evolution. Better to serve up your Darwin straight and leave theology for another day.

A good point. Evolution appears threatening enough to some as it is. Unjustifiably so. Its only a threat to literalists.

AtomicHorror

sdep wrote: »

There's plenty of room in the public square for an Atheist-in-Chief.

I believe we decided on the A&A forum that the correct title is "Mega-Pope". You will conform please.

J C

sdep wrote: »

There's plenty of room in the public square for an Atheist-in-Chief. I just find it unfortunate that the current title-holder should also be the public face of evolutionary biology.

The prime supporting philosophy of Atheism is Materialistic Evolution.....so it shouldn't be any surprise that Professor Dawkins is both 'Atheist-in-Chief' and the 'public face of evolutionary biology'......they are the two sides of the one Atheistic/Evolutionist coin...after all!!!!!:pac::):D

I have read many of Professor Dawkins books.....and I have found them to be quite compelling reading......even though I disagreed with most of what he said.

.......at least there is a consistency between his Atheism and his Evolutionism......

......the people I find hardest to understand are the Christians who claim to accept the Bible as the Word of God.......and who then 'flip over' and join Professor Dawkins and his fellow Atheists in promoting Materialistic Evolution and berating Creation Scientists and ID advocates!!!!!!:D

......there seems to be no consistency in such a position......or if there is...... I would like one of these people to explain how such a position is consitent.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by sdep
Following on, and at risk of staying on topic, I still have my concerns after watching the series.

Dawkins discussing Darwin is fine by me. Dawkins questioning the basis of religion is fine by me. But why can't he keep them separate? Why does he go baiting Beardy Williams on the validity of the Virgin Birth and the resurrection of Lazarus when the programme is meant to be about Darwin? Why does he read out his religiously-themed hate mail? If there is any connection to Darwin's life and theory, it wasn't made.

The danger is that people are left with the impression that Darwinian evolution specifically contradicts the articles of their religious faith. This is the exact same argument made by Creationists. It may lead some to abandon their faith; it causes others to reject evolution. Better to serve up your Darwin straight and leave theology for another day.

......of course Darwinian Evolution is a direct contradiction of the Christian Faith!!!!

......at one fell swoop neo-Darwinian Evolution tries to usurp God's postion as the Creator of all life......and it proposes that 'Materialistic Processes unknown' were the pro-genators of life!!!!!

'Darwin Straight' is EXACTLY what Professor Dawkins serves up!!!!

.......it may not be very palatible to some religious people.......but the man is true to his beliefs in Evolutionism and Atheism!!!!!!

AtomicHorror

One page and here we are again in the BC&P thread. Cheers J C.

Maybe with the topic at hand there's just no way around it. Evolution only contradicts your version of Christianity. The rest seem to be broadly fine with it. So since this is not a thread for debating that, perhaps a little respect?

Fanny Cradock

Oh please, lads. Not again!

AtomicHorror

You're right. Re-rail.

My take on Dawkins is that he has a very valid concern that un-reason and irrationality pose a variety of threats to modern society. Hence his focus on those and his rather blunt notions on religions. I think he has a point, though maybe this wasn't the correct platform.

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You're right. Re-rail.

My take on Dawkins is that he has a very valid concern that un-reason and irrationality pose a variety of threats to modern society. Hence his focus on those and his rather blunt notions on religions. I think he has a point, though maybe this wasn't the correct platform.

I think that Dawkins is as prone to 'un-reason' as the rest of us, especially when it comes to blanket criticisms about religion.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that Dawkins is as prone to 'un-reason' as the rest of us, especially when it comes to blanket criticisms about religion.

Well yeah, but you are religious :pac:

Dawkins' criticism of your religion extends to most religion, or supernatural belief. He is critical of things like astrology and fortune telling. He is being consistent, unlike some people who denounce one form of supernatural belief while cuddling up to their own.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that Dawkins is as prone to 'un-reason' as the rest of us, especially when it comes to blanket criticisms about religion.

I'm sure Dawkins would be amongst the first to admit that self-deception is an innate part of being human and as applicable to him as to any other. The difference is that awareness, the acceptance of it and the attempt to negate it through what he considers the best means; the following of the scientific method.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that Dawkins is as prone to 'un-reason' as the rest of us, especially when it comes to blanket criticisms about religion.

Could you give a few examples of things he said that you find unreasonable?

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Could you give a few examples of things he said that you find unreasonable?

I'll gladly give you one. For instance, he argues that child sexual abuse is 'arguably' less psychologically damaging than bring a child up as Catholic. My jaw dropped when I read that.

Darmok and Jalad atTanagra!

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For instance, he argues that child sexual abuse is 'arguably' less psychologically damaging than bring a child up as Catholic. My jaw dropped when I read that.

That is a bit of mis-representation of what he said.

He gave a story about an American woman who had sent him a letter about the damage that being raised Catholic had on her.

The woman had been sexual abused as a child, which she said was very upsetting. But she had also as a child been raised Catholic and told by her parents that a childhood friend of hers who died young had been sent to hell by God because she and her family were not Catholics.

The woman (not Dawkins) said that being told this as a child had caused her serious emotional stress and emotional harm, manifesting the form of nightmares, far worse in her own opinion than the scars of the sexual abuse.

Based on that woman's experience, and the experiences of others like her, Dawkins has concluded that the emotional harm of teaching children doctrines such as hell and eternal punishment can be as bad or even worse as the emotional harm of something like sexual abuse.

It is funny how different he comes across when you actually look at what he actually said, rather than how religious web sites portray him.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

.....told by her parents that a childhood friend of hers who died young had been sent to hell by God because she and her family were not Catholics.

Shame on her parents if it's true. That would indeed cause serious psychological damage and put anyone off God.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Shame on her parents if it's true. That would indeed cause serious psychological damage and put anyone off God.

Agreed

What ever the differences between the Christians and the Atheists on this forum I think most believe that teaching things like this to children is wrong.

Religion, particularly the rather scary bits, is for adults, not children.

Fanny Cradock

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place (The God Delusion pp 317).

Wicknight wrote: »

Religion, particularly the rather scary bits, is for adults, not children.

I would agree that there is a different way to approach the message when dealing with children.

AtomicHorror

That "arguably" suggests that he is not definite on the matter. He also does not qualify the nature or extent of the upbringing in that faith. Without being clear on what measure of "harm" he is discussing, it's hard to agree with his statement. But I hesitate to disagree emphatically.

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That "arguably" suggests that he is not definite on the matter.

The notion is entirely reasonable to him; it's just happens not to be based on sound logic - quite the opposite, in fact. Tossing the word 'arguably' amongst his statement doesn't really do anything to lessen the gob smackingly spurious nature of the claim. After all, if his accusation doesn't hinge on that single word, it can't be used as a defence.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

He also does not qualify the nature or extent of the upbringing in that faith.

He mentions being brought up Catholic. That's all. If he intended to talk about unusual and particularly horrifying upbringings was a he should have specified this.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Without being clear on what measure of "harm" he is discussing, it's hard to agree with his statement. But I hesitate to disagree emphatically.

To a degree I think we can determine what nature of harm he believes is being brought up a Catholic. However disturbing one thinks child sexual abuse is (I suspect the answer is 'very'), Dawkins reckons that Catholicism is 'arguably' psychologically worse in the long term.

If Dawkins is sure of the truth of his claim he should provide something other than anecdotal evidence. His failure to apply the rigours of the scientific method to his accusation (something I think he would most certainly demand of his opponents) arguably :pac: suggests it is based on his moral and philosophical objection to religion.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The notion is entirely reasonable to him; it's just happens not to be based on sound logic - quite the opposite, in fact.

What would you consider "sound logic"?

The notion is based on encountering people who have been sexual abused who have told him that their experiences with religion growing up were worse than the sexual abuse.

So it clearly is (assuming they and him are telling the truth) the case in some circumstances. Which is probably where he gets the "arguably" from.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If Dawkins is sure of the truth of his claim he should provide something other than anecdotal evidence. His failure to apply the rigours of the scientific method to his accusation (something I think he would most certainly demand of his opponents) arguably :pac: suggests it is based on his moral and philosophical objection to religion.

Did someone claim that it wasn't based on a moral and philosophical objection to religion?

How does one scientifically demonstrate that this American woman was or was not correct that the dogma of the Christian religion damaged her more than her experiences with sexual abuse?

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The notion is entirely reasonable to him; it's just happens not to be based on sound logic - quite the opposite, in fact. Tossing the word 'arguably' amongst his statement doesn't really do anything to lessen the gob smackingly spurious nature of the claim. After all, if his accusation doesn't hinge on that single word, it can't be used as a defence.

He mentions being brought up Catholic. That's all. If he intended to talk about unusual and particularly horrifying upbringings was a he should have specified this.

To a degree I think we can determine what nature of harm he believes is being brought up a Catholic. However disturbing one thinks child sexual abuse is (I suspect the answer is 'very'), Dawkins reckons that Catholicism is 'arguably' psychologically worse in the long term.

If Dawkins is sure of the truth of his claim he should provide something other than anecdotal evidence. His failure to apply the rigours of the scientific method to his accusation (something I think he would most certainly demand of his opponents) arguably :pac: suggests it is based on his moral and philosophical objection to religion.

To Dawkins, the ability to reason and free oneself of irrationality is a most precious gift. I think he sees indoctrination as abuse. Having been brought up only loosely as a Catholic I don't know that I can comment on what it really means to be brought up in that tradition. I certainly think Dawkins' claim fails as a generalisation.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

To Dawkins, the ability to reason and free oneself of irrationality is a most precious gift. I think he sees indoctrination as abuse.

It is more than that I think, he sees teaching children about super powerful being who throw people into hell as literal fact is a form of abuse. A bit like constantly telling your children that if they go to the big city they will be raped.

There certainly seems to be cases where the teaching of such dogma seriously messes with children's heads, in what could be described as mental abuse, as in the case of the woman from America who wrote to Dawkins.

I think a lot of religious people brush it off as harmless, possibly because when they were growing up they probably didn't take it that seriously and only began to take religion seriously in young adulthood. That seems to be the common way adult religious people in Ireland are at least. In America it seems to be a different kettle of fish.

Granted the argument does often come across as a bit of a stretch some times. While some people may be abused by such teaching it is hard to argue that everyone would be, while it is much easier to make the case that every child is harmed by sexual abuse to some extent.

Having said that I do think the teaching of this stuff to children is another example of religion some what getting a free pass, a phenomena Dawkins finds particularly annoying. If one replaces say the teaching of hell with something equally nasty and scary but non-religious, I think a lot more people would say that teaching that to children is wrong and harmful (for example teaching young children about all the exotic diseases they may die from and then telling them they will unless they wash their hands or some such).

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm sure Dawkins would be amongst the first to admit that self-deception is an innate part of being human and as applicable to him as to any other.

....... human self-deception may also play a part in the belief that we are spontaneously evolved from goo.......via the zoo!!!:pac::):D

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If Dawkins is sure of the truth of his claim he should provide something other than anecdotal evidence. His failure to apply the rigours of the scientific method to his accusation (something I think he would most certainly demand of his opponents) arguably :pac: suggests it is based on his moral and philosophical objection to religion.

.....the belief in Materialistic Evolution is ALSO based on a moral and philosophical objection to Godl!!!!:)

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place (The God Delusion pp 317).

......sounds a tad 'over the top' to me!!!!!!!!!:eek: