Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

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monothesim came along, said that the nature of god was fundamentally unknowable, and in the process absorbed and superceded all other religions?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

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

OTM x1000

exactly

i STILL dont know if i should donate to christian charities

dawkins' preference for Christianity (as our last and best defense against the ravening turbaned hordes) gives the game away

fixed

what he said about islam was crass and bad rhetoric. he's not the first person id ask about solving the crisis in nigeria, but i wouldn't ask you guys either really. the christianized social and political elite there is more modern (democratic) than the violent islamist opposition.

i guess the policy institute i was hoping to start was a bad idea

this is usually pretty complicated

No, it's really not as complicated as you're making it out to be. But do what you've gotta do to demonize Dawkins. He doesn't say enough totally dumbass things on his own, so it's good to you you've got his back.

dude, seriously...

super annoying thread

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

i guess dawkins is annoying, though, big picture

― reference + ilx meme (history mayne), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 7:49 PM (47 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i kind of <3 you sometimes

lol

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.

so much bullshit equivocation in this

this is from awhile back in the thread, but since the rest of this conversation got really boring really quickly...

like, most non-hassidic Jews (myself included) bristle at the implication that the Hassidim are somehow a more "authentic" representation of Judaism than I am, that they represent the core tenets of Judaism (rather than a regressive, self-rightoues 18th century offshoot)

I wanted to point out that the 18th century offshoot of Hassidism was originally a radical movement against a centralized, regressive expression of Judaism. The Baal Shem Tov was deliberately contradicting ideas about the role of authority and power (originally heavily Rabbinical) in the faith, and a huge part of his work was giving communities and uneducated/impoverished ppl more agency in the performance of their religion. Moreover he was pushing a heavily gnostic inspired canon that really developed Jewish theology and eventually inspired ppl like Gershom Scholem. Not to mention an aesthetically beautiful tradition imho esp when compared to the major documents we have from the pre-Hassidic Rabbinical European context. Which I think actually makes this point even better. There is really no way these (historically relatively recent) radicals -- who btw were often considered heretical and even until today certain Hassidic sects are controversial -- are the model for "authentic representations of Judaism." Also, that yesterday's radical is often today's reactionary (or to quote Danny Ben-Israel: "The Hippies of Today are the Assholes of Tomorrow").

Also def approve of verb "study" for Talmud. I spent 6 years of (high school and post hs) schooling basically studying Talmud!

did you do the rocking thing

(i did not rock when i read augustine, hence the less committed verb)

i did! it's called shuckling!

Question: Why is Dawkins the close-minded one when his books are full of far more ideas than can be found in religious texts? Aren't believers the close-minded ones for not considering his ideas and points?

Which religious texts? Some of them are full of ideas (actually, the majority of religious texts I've ever studied are way more dense than any Dawkins book).

God contains multitudes, etc.

xp

― american thinker (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, May 11, 2011 7:57 PM (Yesterday)

That is as much a cop out as "Well, the Lord works in mysterious ways." (And it's an insult to Whitman.)

Not that I don't think that believers aren't close-minded. I think human beings in general are pretty close-minded whether of faith or not.

The big three: Torah, Bible, Koran. To me they seem to chronicle quasi-historical-mythical events more than anything else. Ok, some ideas, but they are mostly very basic lessons on how to not be an asshole. Crime and Punishment grapples with moral issues in a far more interesting and revealing way than The Bible.

lol @ Torah Bible being separate things, but yeah, I think the values of those texts tend to be as mythological texts not unlike say Odysseus or Sophocles. Their value is more in establishing these shared cultural stories, myths + archetypes.

Sorry, Torah, then xtian Bible. Yes I know the Torah's in the Christian bible.

And you gotta admit The Odyssey blows the Bible away on that level. Odyssey actually has a narrative!

The Bible has pretty significant narratives...

man religion is just so dumb huh

you guys let's just settle our differences and all study for the ap test together

And you gotta admit The Odyssey blows the Bible away on that level. Odyssey actually has a narrative!

like I don't agree with this on any level. even tho I happen to love both.

Odyssey actually has a narrative!

yes, the bible is a proto-perecian meditation on chaos by comparison

i did! it's called shuckling!

― Mordy, Thursday, May 12, 2011 1:55 PM (1 hour ago)

scholarship is a really cool thing to have a like half-ceremonial physical tradition for

(i'm saying "half" b/c it probably helps you concentrate too)

it's also kind of a tic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZZB-MkQ6LE