Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

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

some points:

*the thing about about religions encouraging "questioning" is really just lip service to rationality and free enquiry. they don't *actually* want you to question it all the way.

*all this stuff about "god" just being a metaphor for nature, mystery, the universe, etc... ok cool, those are all fine and dandy things to think about and appreciate. BUT why then stick a label on those things that people traditionally associate with a conscious entity that created the universe, and all the baggage that goes with that?

*one really unfair thing about these debates is that religious people can use all kinds of shifting metaphors for god, whichever suits their argument. so god goes from being "our father in heaven" to "the ground of all being" to "an ineffable sense of wonder and mystery" etc, etc... the theists are continuously shifting the goalposts. and i doubt a theologian would call out his nicene-creed-following vicar for an unsophisticated view of god the same way he would with your average sceptic.

* "nuance" this is always wheeled out, isn't it? sceptics views on religion aren't "nuanced" enough. as if something becomes automatically more likely because it's more complicated.

I was going to attribute; it's a good point Hitchens makes. And there are good points Bill Mahr makes, because they directly ask believers if they really believe what their holy texts actually SAY. And what they say, by and large, is often pretty backwards and barbaric.

you're kidding

things are created without intelligence all the time lol

xp

BUT why then stick a label on those things that people traditionally associate with a conscious entity that created the universe, and all the baggage that goes with that?

what better way to get your average idiot to grasp the concept?

Bill Maher has never read a book in his life and is smug about it.

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.

and, as I pointed out in a different post, the "god of the gaps" thing was a very narrow idea put forth by creationists in response to evolution. it is not really a commonly accepted or mainstream conception of god. Dawkins angle here is the very essence of a strawman argument.

xp

UNMITIGATED EVIL

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

- EZ snappin

well sure it is, at least in its origins, but i don't know that we can so easily move from that observation to this:

...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.

- ryan

help me out. of what utility is it in this particular discussion to focus on the cultural/economic origins of atheism? and how is the distinction between theism and atheism any less than fundamental?

BUT why then stick a label on those things that people traditionally associate with a conscious entity that created the universe, and all the baggage that goes with that?

cuz just because we answer the questions better these days doesn't mean they're not the same questions

monotheism itself is a claim to have some kind of concrete knowledge of the nature of god (that there's only one of him.)

what better way to refer to the TOTALITY of everything? Monotheism is a way of conceptualizing God as the sum total of everything that exists. Monotheism is like the word "universe", it's a conceptual framework that covers the entirety of existence. It does not have the concept of an individualized personification embedded in it, and there are trunkloads of theological texts delineating this view - that God is infinite, has no boundaries, is eternal, etc.

xp

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.

― ryan, Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:24 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Does this make it a less valid idea, somehow? Is this the Terry Eagleton critique of Atheism?

Max, why do you keep saying "unmitigated evil?"

pretty sure the lads at my local kebab shop aren't unmitigated evil. tbh a doner kebab is mitigation enough.

i assume Dawkins refuses to eat kebabs on principle

"and, as I pointed out in a different post, the "god of the gaps" thing was a very narrow idea put forth by creationists in response to evolution."

nah... loads of mainstream, liberal christians will point to something like quantum mechanics or the uncertainty principle and say "aaahhhh... the traditional newtonian model of the universe is flawed, the universe is stranger than we ever thought, DO YOU SEE?" as if these ideas make a conscious creator any more likely at all.

what better way to refer to the TOTALITY of everything? Monotheism is a way of conceptualizing God as the sum total of everything that exists. Monotheism is like the word "universe", it's a conceptual framework that covers the entirety of existence. It does not have the concept of an individualized personification embedded in it, and there are trunkloads of theological texts delineating this view - that God is infinite, has no boundaries, is eternal, etc.

xp

― american thinker (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:38 PM (43 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

This is just wrong, Obi Wan Kenobi. You're talking about the fucking Force.

Max, why do you keep saying "unmitigated evil?"

top of the thread revive, chuckles

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.

- wk

look, this is simply wrong. it displays a very basic failure to comprehend science and its aims. science has nothing to say about whether or not there is any intelligence behind the order of things. science merely observes and tests the order it can perceive.

and you're speaking awfully blithely about "most definitions of god." though i claim to be an atheist or an agnostic, i've got my inklings. i've known a great many people of various faiths who believe in a divinity that works through the supposedly material "natural order of things."

yeah, just use the word "universe". "god" assumes some sort of consciousness or direction. the universe doesn't "know" or give a fuck about anything. it just is.

nah... loads of mainstream, liberal christians will point to something like quantum mechanics or the uncertainty principle and say "aaahhhh... the traditional newtonian model of the universe is flawed, the universe is stranger than we ever thought, DO YOU SEE?" as if these ideas make a conscious creator any more likely at all.

I was referring specifically to where this concept came from and how it developed, eg:
The term goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th century evangelist lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man. He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."

xp

This is just wrong, Obi Wan Kenobi. You're talking about the fucking Force.

richard dawkins can now reveal that the force is nothing but a poorly plagiarized version of judaism

and you're speaking awfully blithely about "most definitions of god." though i claim to be an atheist or an agnostic, i've got my inklings. i've known a great many people of various faiths who believe in a divinity that works through the supposedly material "natural order of things."

― always have time for the crystalline entity (contenderizer), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:44 PM (23 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

That's called Pantheism.

. the universe doesn't "know" or give a fuck about anything. it just is.

hmm, y'know some people have said this about God too. theologians even.

xp

the universe doesn't "know" or give a fuck about anything. it just is.

hey you know what else people say just is

oh lol xp

The best thing about being Jewish is that you can be a Jewish Atheist.

i've known a great many people of various faiths who believe in a divinity that works through the supposedly material "natural order of things."

― always have time for the crystalline entity (contenderizer), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 5:44 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

this is most of the ppl of faith that i know. who then appeal to personalized conceptions of god/whoever when it suits them

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.

- wk

oh come on. you can't both rationally argue against religious mythology and condescendingly sneer at faith that isn't dependent on such mythology.

This is just wrong, Obi Wan Kenobi. You're talking about the fucking Force.

which authoritative religious text/commentary would you prefer me to quote here?

xp

That's called Pantheism.

- thirdalternative

well, it might be called pantheism, but isn't necessarily that. many christians claim to perceive the divine in all aspects of creation, even in science and the material workings of the universe. this isn't pantheism, it's monotheistic christianity.