Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

literally believe that God created everything

like literally you don't think a mysterious force that we don't have any real knowledge of created the universe? cuz um that is more or less the current scientific view of things.

one of Dawkins real problems is that he literally thinks the average religious person's conception of God is as a great big white-bearded guy in the sky which, if he bothered to actually investigate the ways people deal with and integrate religion into their daily lives, is just wrong.

LITERALLY

he existence of a pro-choice Catholic priest does not override the church's official stance on the issue.

it's funny that you bring this up, since the Catholic Church is one of the few religions with an actually centralized, bureaucratic theological structure. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hindusim, other branches of Christianity - they don't have these things. Interpreting what constitutes a "real" Jew/Muslim/Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/etc is a completely subjective process that has changed continually over time, it is very fluid.

The existence of a pro-choice Catholic priest does not override the church's official stance on the issue.

I'm sure there are guys in the Vatican who'd like to think they run a doctrinaire heirarchy with the Pope pulling the strings but the Catholic church doesn't and hasn't ever really worked like that. The same goes for any religion bigger than a cult. Dawks gleefully offends religious people of all stripes in the name of going after some power structures that he sees as negative. I don't recall ever reading a nuanced argument from him about religion as a whole, just the same old "hey guys the ontological argument doesn't stand up to a whole lot of scrutiny". Thank fuck somebody finally realised that eh?

hey guys have you ever noticed that the Bible is just a bunch of silly stories? MAKES YA THINK

lol I guess Noodle has a more nuanced view of Catholicism than I do (I happily cede the floor to people with more experience on the subject)

xp

not experience so much as reading but you can look thru the history of the Church and it's a more or less constant struggle between the centralizers and the communities around the margins, or even power blocs within the centralizers - hi Jesuits!

stupid Nicene Creed messed up everything

one of Dawkins real problems is that he literally thinks the average religious person's conception of God is as a great big white-bearded guy in the sky which, if he bothered to actually investigate the ways people deal with and integrate religion into their daily lives, is just wrong.

― american thinker (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 2:03 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark

i'm as anti-dawkins as any atheist (agnostic) can be, but i think this misses the point. though he talks in a broad way about "religion", i think dawkings is really just tilting against christian fundamentalism. therefore, a lot of the people he's trying to shoot down really do literally believe in the infallible sky father, in a war between good and evil, in the seven-day creation, a young earth and noah's ark. they believe in the inarguable existence of a jesus christ who walked on water and healed the sick and rose from the grave. and they believe that anyone who thinks differently is a dupe, an agent of satan destined only to burn in hell.

he often conflates these sorts of extremist beliefs with religion in general, and that's a problem. i half-suspect that, deep down, he believes that less radical forms of religious faith are nothing more than namby-pamby versions of the same thing. but to the extent that his real targets are inflexible and often violent fundamentalists, he's not 100% off the mark.

Isn't it safe to say that the majority of religious believers in the world hold some type of supernatural beliefs that Dawkins would reject? I'm not going to do the math but I think if you add up Catholics and various orthodox or fundamentalist groups they probably account for the majority of believers, don't they? I guess I'll have to dig up some polls on religious beliefs.

At any rate, the nuanced point of view just gets you into the "god of the gaps" problem which Dawkins addresses as well.

i think dawkings is really just tilting against christian fundamentalism

hey don't forget the unmitigated evil of Islam now

like literally you don't think a mysterious force that we don't have any real knowledge of created the universe?

Which major religions claim that they have no real knowledge of god? I mean, they might on some level claim that god is ultimately unknowable to man, but most religions have some specific conception of god that lays claim to being not only "real knowledge" of the nature of god, but usually, the one and only true knowledge.

one of Dawkins real problems is that he literally thinks the average religious person's conception of God is as a great big white-bearded guy in the sky which, if he bothered to actually investigate the ways people deal with and integrate religion into their daily lives, is just wrong.

Except that he addresses this "problem" pretty much every time he speaks.

I mean, they might on some level claim that god is ultimately unknowable to man, but most religions have some specific conception of god that lays claim to being not only "real knowledge" of the nature of god, but usually, the one and only true knowledge.

no.

so many straw men!

all the major religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism (I dunno about Hinduism, pantheons are a little tricky when it comes to this stuff) - speak of the nature of God primarily in metaphors. Pretty much all of them have at their core an explicit understanding that God essentially transcends human comprehension. Now where they DO really differ is on what is required to gain ACCESS to this unknowable/ineffable/inexhaustible spiritual force (ie the one true path is Jesus, Mohammad, being "chosen", attaining enlightenment etc)

xp

Except that he addresses this "problem" pretty much every time he speaks.

do tell. I assume this is his "god of the gaps" angle you referred to

is there no middle ground between the "god of the gaps" and an all-powerful sky father? seems a bit reductionist/inaccurate to assert this imho

the god of the gaps is an unmitigated evil

like, the "god of the gaps" is specifically a creationist response to evolution - it's a pretty narrow, reactionary way to think about God.

Pretty much all of them have at their core an explicit understanding that God essentially transcends human comprehension.

No.

Christianity stresses a personal relationship with god. Islam knows what god wants (which is submission). The only of the big three that this is even remotely true is Judaism, because it's the only world religion that encourages questioning.

The real problem here (Dawkins, this thread) isn't lack of curiosity about religion -- it's lack of curiosity about reading.

it's the only world religion that encourages questioning.

― thirdalternative, Wednesday, May 11, 2011 4:57 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

buddhism

god as incomprehensible and even the mystery of whether or not you are among the saved or damned is a pretty strong part of (at least) Protestant Christianity.

Left unsaid in all this is that atheism is pretty much only comprehensible within certain materialist and monotheist traditions of western Europe.

honestly I think a lot of people who profess to be religious have a much wider range of amorphous, vaguely defined beliefs than can be easily delineated along traditional sectarian lines. after all, the "mystery" inherent in religion is a big part of the appeal, the desire to be in touch with something cosmic, unknowable, bigger than yourself

Christianity stresses a personal relationship with god

relationship with /= comprehension

Islam knows what god wants (which is submission)

this also is not comprehension.

"Say: He is Allah,
The One and Only.
"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.
"He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him."

not a real clear definition then. after all, how can the human mind truly grasp anything that is "eternal" and "absolute"?

[i]The only of the big three that this is even remotely true is Judaism, because it's the only world religion that encourages questioning.[i]

this is also total bullshit, sorry dude.

The only of the big three that this is even remotely true is Judaism, because it's the only world religion that encourages questioning.

Augustine, Aquinas, John of the Cross, not to mention several popes would have a problem with that formulation.

the only mainstream monotheist religion that encourages questioning.

As for Atheists not being curious about religion, a recent PEW study said they tend to know more about religion than the religious:

http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

the only mainstream monotheist religion that encourages questioning

I just... waht.

Islamic jurisprudence is based on the Qu'ran, the sunnah (actions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad), the uses of analogy, and consensus of the community. These methods of deriving laws evolved hundreds of city-based schools of thoughts, which were eventually mainstreamed into the four main Sunni schools of thought. Even within these schools, there is much diversity and disagreement, and a high value placed on independent thought.

The philosophical tradition grows out of a high value placed on seeking knowledge. Says Dabashi “There goes a story about how a man exchanged a bunch of his soldiers so that he could have a book of Aristotle-- and these Greek philosophers were translated first into Syriac and Aramaic and then into Arabic.”

The philosophical tradition grew out of the legal tradition, Dabashi explained. “If you wanted to study philosophy, you wouldn't go to a school of philosophy. You'd go to a legal school, and you would have circles of students studying philosophy outside of classes in the law libraries or at their professor's house.” In this way, philosophy developed out of a conversation with Islamic law, and changing social conditions.

“Legal scholars and philosophical scholars fought with each other constantly,” said Dabashi. “And then the Sufis showed up and they weren't interested in jurisprudence or philosophy because those things didn't have enough soul, so they developed a tradition of mysticism.”

lol at Pew poll and results btw

i think that judaism has historically been more open to questioning and doubt than most traditional christian and islamic faiths, but an acceptance of the fundamentally unknowable nature of the divine is an important, even an essential component of christian faith. it's a terrible mistake, imo, to imagine that the religion resides only in doctrine and myth. mystery and transcendence are equally important.

ya but islam is an unmitigated evil

Jesus asked questions -- look what happened to him.

Dawkins is a ninny, but I don't get this statement from ryan upthread:

Left unsaid in all this is that atheism is pretty much only comprehensible within certain materialist and monotheist traditions of western Europe.

Atheism is incomprehensible in non-western or pantheistic societies? Really? I dont think so.

obviously totally on your guys' side re: syncretic nature of modern religion, value of transcendence, beauty and richness of corpus, narrow-mindedness of richard dawkins etc., but to be fair i know more jews who've studied talmud than christians who've read augustine.

oh too late

to be fair i know more jews who've studied talmud than christians who've read augustine.

"studied" vs "read"

Islam knows what god wants (which is submission)

going back to this cuz it's so fucking irritating... since when does submission require understanding? your computer submits to your will, does it "understand" you?

xxp

that's part of why there's no monolithic target with a simple set of rules called religion: in any faith you have people who don't really think v. hard about theology and orthodoxy and stuff, and people who don't do much else but think about those things. usually a lot more of the former than the latter tho, and each one of them must carry some more or less nebulous version of their personal doctrine in their head

talmudic texts are a fucking MONSTER to slog through, btw. probably better off going to Gershom Scholem for a summary (even then it's still pretty rough going). Definitely more inscrutable than Augustine.

lol Maimonides is on my amazon wish list

xp

ya but islam is an unmitigated evil

― ban drake (the rapper) (max), Wednesday, 11 May 2011 22:14 (4 minutes ago) Permalink

More like a poorly plagarized version of Christianity. Though the idea of an omniscient god who can convict you of thought crimes and torture you for eternity after your die strikes me as evil.

*sigh*

More like a poorly plagarized version of Christianity. Though the idea of an omniscient god who can convict you of thought crimes and torture you for eternity after your die strikes me as evil.

Christopher, if that's you we want to wish you a speedy recovery and/or eternal submission to a sky god.

srsly that's plucked straight from God is Not Great. At least attribute.

EZ - I'd be curious to know if the kinds of atheism that would arise in such societies would have much in common with western atheism.

My point was perhaps too broad- I really mean that the particular atheism that dawkins represents is a product of an empirical/capitalist/materialist modernity and shouldn't be divorced from those circumstances as if theism/atheism is a fundamental or necessary distinction. It just happens to be one some people have a lot invested in.

you guys sure do think a lot

srsly that's plucked straight from God is Not Great. At least attribute.

just a little friendly plagarism

gotcha ryan. The "atheism of the enlightenment" school of reasoning is definitely a western construct.

like literally you don't think a mysterious force that we don't have any real knowledge of created the universe?

Also Shakey, for a guy who claims to represent the nuanced view, you left a pretty enormous hole there with the use of the word "created". Do you mean intentionally created with some kind of intelligence or plan? If so, then no I definitely don't believe that or think it's an accurate reflection of current science. If you mean "created" as in "just sort of happened accidentally without any sort of plan" then I think that contradicts most definitions of god.

do tell. I assume this is his "god of the gaps" angle you referred to

I think if your religious beliefs and definitions are constantly changing in response to new scientific findings, then you've relegated god to a pretty sad role. I think Dawkins' point of view is that you should go ahead and let science keep pushing your god further into the gaps and that your type of belief is not really the kind he's worried about.

Pretty much all of them have at their core an explicit understanding that God essentially transcends human comprehension.

"Pretty much" and "essentially" except for the basic conceptions of their god that are fundamental to their religion. I mean, monotheism itself is a claim to have some kind of concrete knowledge of the nature of god (that there's only one of him.) Most religions add other claims on top of that (he created man in his image, etc.)

gbx otm