Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

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?

I dont think the distinction is "necessary" in the philosophical sense of necessary. There are no fundamental distinctions! We could as easily be debating why there is something as opposed to nothing. The existence or non-existence of God is only meaningful in certain contexts (other distinctions).

It's useful to point this out because the problem with Dawkins et al is just that myopia. He doesn't take his own observational stance as anything less than necessary. As gregory Bateson puts it, science doesnt "prove" things. That's not how it works.

feel like no one itt is really addressing the question at hand, which is: give that islam is an unmitigated evil, should you donate to christian charities in africa

things are created without intelligence all the time lol

Is that what Christians mean by "creation"?

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.

I think you misunderstand. Dawkins is hardly using the term as something that a believer would use to self-identify. He's using the term to describe exactly your position. The idea that "God" really means "the whole universe" and beliefs like that.

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.

And that is a specific claim about your knowledge of God! It rules out pantheistic points of view for example.

max arrrrrgh OTM

things are created without intelligence all the time lol

ILE threads, fer instance...

surprised that one hung there for as long as it did

easy lay-up

. 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

― american thinker (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 11:46 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

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

― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, May 11, 2011 11:46 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

hmmm... theologians say a lot of things, don't they? but if you went into even the most inclusive, liberal, modern, practically-bordering-on-agnostic church and told them god doesn't know anything or give a fuck about any of us, i'm sure it would raise a few eyebrows, to say the least.

you can't use the argument that literalist fundies only make up a tiny fraction of religious belief and then use an even tinier fraction of intellectual believers as an example of what religious people really think.

why do you care so much

"I had a kind of revelation in the Sinai desert, where Moses received the Ten Commandments. Suddenly I experienced a total rejection of monotheism. In this very rocky, inspiring land, I said to myself that the idea of believing in only one God was cretinous. I could not think of another word. And the stupidest religion of all is Islam. When one reads the Koran one is devastated, devastated. At least the Bible is very beautiful because the Jews have a sacred literary talent which can excuse a lot of things." (Michel Houellebecq)

"I know that Islam - by far the most stupid, false and obfuscating of all religions - currently seems to be gaining ground, but it's a transitory and superficial phenomenon: in the long term, Islam is even more doomed than Christianity." (Michel Houellebecq, Les particules élémentaires)

"In literary terms, the Bible has several authors, some good and some as bad as crap. The Koran has only one author and its overall style is mediocre." (Michel Houellebecq)

Perhaps the problem is that many of us want to thrust, say, aquinas or cusa or augustine into this debate when really all Dawkins is about is pretty much trolling fundamentalists the way a postmodernist philosopher would troll him.

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.

The vast majority of Americans believe that god answers prayers. So maybe they should bone up on these theologians who say that god doesn't give a fuck about anything before you worry about Dawkins doing it.

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

Why not? I mean sure, Dawkins is an insufferable prick. And maybe it's a dickish point of view for him to have the attitude that if you think God just means "the universe" then haha, science has already won, so who cares what you think. But I can't say that I'm totally unsympathetic to that feeling.

why do you care so much

― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 11:56 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

it's just interesting, innit?

I think you misunderstand. Dawkins is hardly using the term as something that a believer would use to self-identify. He's using the term to describe exactly your position. The idea that "God" really means "the whole universe" and beliefs like that.

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.

And that is a specific claim about your knowledge of God! It rules out pantheistic points of view for example.

uh you seem to be fundamentally unable to grasp the concept of totality here. A God that encompasses the whole universe isn't just the gaps, it's the gaps AND everything elsetoo! Including pantheistic deities! (which is one of the main ways Xtianity grew, by co-opting pantheism! "Hey look, this Jesus dude is JUST like that grain god you worship who's dying and being reborn all the time")

xp

I dont think the distinction is "necessary" in the philosophical sense of necessary. There are no fundamental distinctions! We could as easily be debating why there is something as opposed to nothing. The existence or non-existence of God is only meaningful in certain contexts (other distinctions).

It's useful to point this out because the problem with Dawkins et al is just that myopia. He doesn't take his own observational stance as anything less than necessary. As gregory Bateson puts it, science doesnt "prove" things. That's not how it works.

― ryan

well, on that level, there is no such thing as a fundamentally necessary distinction (or very nearly no such thing), so it's hardly worth mentioning. no offense, i just think the level of abstraction you're moving to is a form of obscurantism, unless you have a clear point in mind. sure, we might just as easily be debating anything, but we aren't. and something is, period.

personally, i don't think that the problem with dawkins has much to do with the relationship of his atheism to western cultures and economies. i boil it down to an arrogance and self-righteousness of thought, but maybe we're saying the same thing in different guises.

you can't use the argument that literalist fundies only make up a tiny fraction of religious belief

I didn't say this. I said they were a recent development. They're currently a sizable enough portion

and then use an even tinier fraction of intellectual believers as an example of what religious people really think.

my only point is that "religion" encompasses ALL of these, there's a wide range. Generalizing and painting with broad brushes is not only offensive, it's just stupid and unscientific.

xp

ok then, do you think the vast majority of religious people are "stupid and unscientific" because they conceive of god as a conscious entity that created the universe, or does that criticism only apply to atheists who see god (or the idea of him) like that?

Perhaps you're right and I'll back off the abstraction a bit. The goal though wasnt obscurantism but clarity.

I think the relationship of fundamentalism and those left behind/excluded/oppressed by modernity is pretty relevant because it makes the important connection of atheism and what, as a belief, it is designed to accomplish. Dawkins probably feels it is liberating to be an atheist, others may argue it makes the encroachment of, for instance, capitalism a much more dominant force. Maybe both!

Nothing Dawkins has said is anywhere near as offensive of the idea that if I don't accept Jesus I'll boil for eternity, or that not believing in Allah makes me an infidel. Why should I respect these stone age notions?

well you'll presumably prove that wrong by dying and not boiling, so what's the diff to you?

being an infidel can be a little dangerous in some places though

well, religious people do not typically defend their arguments with appeals to science. so it's not a big deal when their beliefs are unscientific. it's maybe a problem when their beliefs are hostile to or ignorant of science, but that's a different debate. science, after all, does not tell us that a conscious god didn't create the universe. it merely finds no evidence in support of such a belief.

as for the "stupid" part, i don't think it's stupid to "conceive of god as a conscious entity that created the universe." i don't personally believe in such a thing (or disbelieve in it), but i don't cast aspersions on the intelligence of those who do. i've known lots of intelligent christians.

doesn't seem like anyone's forcing you to respect them to me

xp

contenderizer otm

that last one went to this:

ok then, do you think the vast majority of religious people are "stupid and unscientific" because they conceive of god as a conscious entity that created the universe, or does that criticism only apply to atheists who see god (or the idea of him) like that?

― http://i56.tinypic.com/xnsu1g.gif (max arrrrrgh), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 4:09 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

being an infidel sounds kinda cool. like being in a street gang or something.

ok then, do you think the vast majority of religious people are "stupid and unscientific" because they conceive of god as a conscious entity that created the universe, or does that criticism only apply to atheists who see god (or the idea of him) like that?

are you even reading what I wrote? what I was characterizing as "stupid and unscientific" was extrapolating conclusions about the sum total of religious beliefs from a small sample source.

xp

uh you seem to be fundamentally unable to grasp the concept of totality here. A God that encompasses the whole universe isn't just the gaps, it's the gaps AND everything elsetoo! Including pantheistic deities! (which is one of the main ways Xtianity grew, by co-opting pantheism! "Hey look, this Jesus dude is JUST like that grain god you worship who's dying and being reborn all the time")

It doesn't work the other way though does it? What if I have a dualistic view of the universe and totally reject the idea that any kind of unity is possible? You seem unable to grasp the fact that by conceiving of god as "everything in the universe" you're already claiming a particular knowledge of him that contradicts other religions claims of knowledge.

And this has nothing to do with the "god of the gaps" but was a response to your claim that pretty much all religions "have at their core an explicit understanding that God essentially transcends human comprehension."

What if I have a dualistic view of the universe and totally reject the idea that any kind of unity is possible?

lol they call this zoroastrianism iirc

You seem unable to grasp the fact that by conceiving of god as "everything in the universe" you're already claiming a particular knowledge of him that contradicts other religions claims of knowledge.

it doesn't contradict - it supercedes and absorbs. which is literally what happened to all the pantheistic religions that got gobbled up by Christianity and Islam.

what ends up happening is that local customs and deities are maintained, but re-framed within a new cosmology. there are so many examples of this I don't even know where to start... Christmas, candomble, Catholic veneration of saints, etc

my point was that theologians and apologetics for religion in general will often call out critics of religion for not having a more nuanced, sophisticated idea of what god is... but if yr average churchgoer wants to believe in a simple, human-shaped god that's fine.

x-posts

Perhaps you're right and I'll back off the abstraction a bit. The goal though wasnt obscurantism but clarity.

I think the relationship of fundamentalism and those left behind/excluded/oppressed by modernity is pretty relevant because it makes the important connection of atheism and what, as a belief, it is designed to accomplish. Dawkins probably feels it is liberating to be an atheist, others may argue it makes the encroachment of, for instance, capitalism a much more dominant force. Maybe both!

― ryan, Wednesday, May 11, 2011 4:10 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

that last post of mine (to you) was a little mean. apologies. maybe i'm defensive cuz i don't fully understand what you're getting at and it makes me feel stupid. i get the part about atheism clearing space for materialism, thus capitalism, and that's an interesting way to view the debate. not so clear on what you mean about "the relationship of fundamentalism and those left behind/excluded/oppressed by modernity." america is one of the most modern societies in the world in this sense, but also one of the most strongly fundamentalist - to an extent that's unheard of in the rest of the modern (developed) world. much of the middle east, OTOH, is similarly fundamentalist, but hardly modern. that is, i'm not sure the relationship is so clear.

Nothing Dawkins has said is anywhere near as offensive of the idea that if I don't accept Jesus I'll boil for eternity, or that not believing in Allah makes me an infidel. Why should I respect these stone age notions?

― thirdalternative, Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:13 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

goole otm re this stupid question

how on earth do you have the time and energy to be 'offended' by stuff like that? i mean obv if ppl are actively oppressing you for your beliefs, its one thing. but when atheists in europe/US get aggrieved by the fact that religious folk believe bad things will happen to them in a fictional afterlife, it's like get a fucking job, guy

What if I have a dualistic view of the universe and totally reject the idea that any kind of unity is possible?

zoroastrianism more or less comfortably absorbed into fundamentalist shi'ite Iran to this day, btw

xp

it doesn't contradict - it supercedes and absorbs. which is literally what happened to all the pantheistic religions that got gobbled up by Christianity and Islam.

smh. don't even know where to start with this tbh

the longer this thread goes on the more i think that this is really a discussion about "science" and not about "religion"

they're really just the same thing if you think about it

So let me see if I'm following you correctly here: no religions claim to have any knowledge of god, because monothesim came along, said that the nature of god was fundamentally unknowable, and in the process absorbed and superceded all other religions?

to shakey obv

my point was that theologians and apologetics for religion in general will often call out critics of religion for not having a more nuanced, sophisticated idea of what god is... but if yr average churchgoer wants to believe in a simple, human-shaped god that's fine.

I dunno, maybe you've noticed, but a lot of times different groups of religious people don't get along or agree on things.

xp

That's a very good point. I was thinking particularly about the American south as the hotbed of fundamentalism--is the rest of the country? Not sure.

In a way you could argue Dawkins is fighting the persistence of 18th or 19th century religious belief with the weapons of 18th or 19th century science.

This probably frustrates those who have, for whatever reason but probably due to non-equal rates of social development, have moved past that debate. It seems strange to them that Dawkins wouldnt engage with negative theology, weak ontology (that's vattimo), or the like.

Things only get more complicated because the typical affluent Christian that I know isnt much different from an atheist in any practical sense.

Xpost to contenderizer

no religions claim to have any knowledge of god

this is putting it a bit strongly. most religions claim that they know what God wants or requires of humanity, but this is ALWAYS because God sent an interlocutor to humanity, a spokesperson who had a direct line to God and was sent to relay his instructions. so some knowledge of God is possible, in the sense of what God reportedly said or commanded or what have you. understanding his fundamental nature is a different question, however, and all the monotheistic religions (as well as buddhism and to a lesser extent hinduism) emphasize God's eternal, infinite, all-encompassing, category-defying nature.

because monothesim came along, said that the nature of god was fundamentally unknowable

most of them, as I note above, said "there is no way to God except through me, his trusty sidekick. If you do what I say God wants you to do, maybe some good stuff will happen to you. Probably. Maybe in the next world. Not necessarily in this one though. Anyway, give me some money."

and in the process absorbed and superceded all other religions

the unknowable nature and absorption of pantheistic traditions are kind of tangentially related. it's more that being able to say "God is infinite and omnipresent" allowed pantheistic cultures to accept monotheism, while also integrating their local customs into it.

xp

One thing to remember here is the old "set of all sets" paradox. To conceive of the universe as a whole invents the universe/non-universe distinction (if you dont use that distinction it becomes hard to determine what you mean by "universe") and invites the question as to whether the universe contains itself. In a lot of traditions (Cusa and Jonathan Edwards come to mind) this paradox is how god is concieved.

Cusa is an interesting guy

most religions claim that they know what God wants or requires of humanity, but this is ALWAYS because God sent an interlocutor to humanity, a spokesperson who had a direct line to God and was sent to relay his instructions. so some knowledge of God is possible, in the sense of what God reportedly said or commanded or what have you.

OK, so you'll agree that most popular religions claim to have some kind of knowledge of what god wants or has said? So isn't it fair to attack those claims, and a bit absurd for believers to then argue "well we don't really believe those things." Doesn't the idea that "god is just like the whole universe of energy or something man" directly contradict the idea that god has instructions that he sent to us through an interlocutor?

super annoying thread

islam and christianity are both making people's lives worse in africa

i guess dawkins is annoying, though, big picture

lol apropos of that article I am reading Pathways Through to Space right now! Very cool link.

guys i didn't revive this richard dawkins thread to talk about atheism

Oh yeah on topic: dawkins' preference for Christianity (as somehow more modern and thus closer to his ideal) over Islam gives the game way

you revived it to talk about the unmitigated evil of islam?

x-post

OK, so you'll agree that most popular religions claim to have some kind of knowledge of what god wants or has said?

yeah this is fairly common. there are traditions within various religions, though, that contradictorily stress than the only true knowledge of God is that which is attained through personal union with God and his creation - which is primarily the mystic schools (sufism, kabbalah, etc). then you get into some really slippery theological territory.

So isn't it fair to attack those claims

sure, go ahead.

and a bit absurd for believers to then argue "well we don't really believe those things."

are you talking about me? which believers are you referring to here? devil's in the details. this is usually pretty complicated. some sects will follow some teachings and reject others and have really complex reasoning for doing so. Fundie Christians don't keep kosher, for example (which is based on instructions in Leviticus) but they do hate them gays (which, they claim, is based on instructions in Leviticus).

Doesn't the idea that "god is just like the whole universe of energy or something man" directly contradict the idea that god has instructions that he sent to us through an interlocutor?

God contains multitudes, etc.

xp