Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

What happens after Constantine is the butt-end of the Empire anyway

there's a city with that guy's name on it you know...

I think Noodle's mostly OTM there

altho What happens after Constantine is the butt-end of the Empire anyway and they didn't do v. much smiting in an outward direction from then on

...well there was that whole Crusades thing. altho by then the Roman Empire was barely Roman or an Empire in anything more than name only.

xp

can't call the assorted post-Viking thugocracies in Western Europe the Roman Empire at that point, Holy or otherwise. also one of those Crusades ended up pillaging the fuck out of Constantinople cos it was easier iirc

i.e. religious justification or not the Crusades were strictly bidness all the time

"this might be true if religion's hammer-like quality were unique. but it isn't."

it is unique in strength, in that any other coercive tool cannot resort to "because I said so"
"because I said so" requires an unimpeachable higher authority, which is tautologically religious
so even "godless" states under Stalin and Mao qualify.

Stalin and Mao now considered religious states eh, nicely done

fun thread.

going back to the post that revived the thread, on theology as an academic discipline: I feel very strongly that if the problem the "new atheists" have with religion is to due with authoritarian violence and false certainty, then we need MORE theology, not less. And make it practically required in public schools. I can think of almost no more humbling discipline (other maybe than theoretical physics).

it is unique in strength, in that any other coercive tool cannot resort to "because I said so"
"because I said so" requires an unimpeachable higher authority, which is tautologically religious
so even "godless" states under Stalin and Mao qualify.

― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, May 24, 2011 12:12 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark

i reject this entirely. the power of the state can be "unimpeachable" without being in any sense religious. the state typically reserves a material ability to compel obedience that is, arguably, far sterner than any merely religious edict.

i further reject the attempt to brand all forms of absolutist certainty as "religious." religion is a specific thing, and if you wish instead to speak of philosophical absolutism in general, then do so. i would agree, by the way, that absolutist belief systems are profoundly and inherently dangerous, and that they exist outside religion. atheism, in the hands of certain adherents, tends towards just this sort of pernicious, aggressive and dehumanizing absolutism (i.e., religious believers are dangerous idiots who believe the wrong thing and should be eradicated).

yes, and i think theology as a discipline (especially contemporary theology) does a pretty good job of reminding you to not mistake your own limited point of view for God's. partially why the book of Job is pertinent in its "who do you think you are?" section.

the state can surely compel utter obedience, but from where does it draw its authority to do so?
let's put it this way -- it is far more cost-effective to compel obedience through appeals of divine righteousness than a paycheck, and for governments that can no longer afford its paychecks (c.f. N. Korea), divine righteousness becomes the de facto currency, regardless of any putative positions the state might have on the theological nature of existence.

The kind of absolutism you're describing is tantamount to magical thinking. I don't know what to call that but religious.
It's certainly cult-like. I understand the hesitance to call something like Zappos a religion, but just wait till they start sacrificing customer reps to Zapato the shoe god.

If you start using words like "we're chosen", "we're the chosen ones", "we have been chosen for this task", then the implication is we are chosen by God, even if your party line professes He doesn't exist.

Is the "who do you think you are?" section the part where Job starts whining? The subversive thing about that section is that Job has a point, and is probably the few places where God's authority is challenged. One way to read that is of a low level clerk asking for a raise and the manager makes a big noise so as not to lose face, then later gives in to the clerk's demands.

If you start using words like "we're chosen", "we're the chosen ones", "we have been chosen for this task", then the implication is we are chosen by God, even if your party line professes He doesn't exist.

that is entirely your baggage

I don't know what to call that but religious.

if are talking about secular things you can call them metaphysics.

sure Philip, Job may have a point. God does see fit to respond after all! God sorta outranks most managers tho ;)

sorry how is a guy who subtitles a book "how we know what's really true" not engaging in absolutist thinking?

also remember when dawkins wondered out loud if harry potter books being popular was the reason young people werent as enamored with rationalism as he

"God sorta outranks most managers tho ;)"

somewhere Kirk Cameron is busy shooting a parody of Undercover CEO where it looks like God is going to have trouble handling the lunch rush and cleaning the slurpee machines, but instead He just aces it.

The kind of absolutism you're describing is tantamount to magical thinking. I don't know what to call that but religious.

there are many things we might call it. absolutist, for one thing. i don't believe, however, that "magical thinking" necessarily fit, and i'm certain that "religious" is far to specific in its meaning to cover all types of absolutist belief. what you seem to be doing is lumping a much larger and more pernicious issue in with religion, then faulting religion unfairly for all the sins of absolutism. the extremes of socialist/communist faith in the perfection of a single political/economic system (and the philosophy behind it) might be metaphorically liked to religious certainty, but it it simply is not a religion. nor is monetarist faith in the inherent stability and "correctness" of unmonitored free markets. people believe all sorts of strange things, and their beliefs often lead them to conflict. not every belief that seems less than sensible, however, is "religious," except in the most loosely metaphorical sense.

again, if you simply want to fault zealotry and fundamentalism, then do that.

let's put it this way -- it is far more cost-effective to compel obedience through appeals of divine righteousness than a paycheck, and for governments that can no longer afford its paychecks (c.f. N. Korea), divine righteousness becomes the de facto currency, regardless of any putative positions the state might have on the theological nature of existence.

paychecks work, jackboots & rifles work, appeals to divine righteousness work. in the dungeon of my father are many mansions. not sure that the relative affordability of options is really the issue here.

xp - contenderizer otm in prior post

Conflation of religion with zealotry and absolutism is a mental error common to those who have no other ideas of religion. It is difficult to dissuade them from this oversimplification, because, as with most forms of conservatism, admitting more complex ideas of religion ruins the beautiful symmetry of their beliefs and requires them to return to thinking matters through. As ever, thinking is hard and unattractive compared to having all the answers pat.

i mean, we can't even make "magical thinking" synonymous with religion. imagine someone who thinks, "if i do everything right, buy the right presents, cook the perfect meal, smile and give thanks, then we will have a perfect christmas and be a real family." this person is engaged in magical thinking. likewise couples who believe things like, "so long as our love is true, everything will work out." these sorts of belief depend on a kind of faith-based magic, but they have nothing to do with religion per se.

does magical thinking include "if i keep trying to make 'Brights' happen then one day it'll catch on"?

includes voting left of centre imo

lol Brights

includes voting imo

lol contenderizer, using "we'll have a perfect Christmas" as an example undercuts your point a little

c'mon, even atheists love a good christmas

touche nv, touche

well yeah, presents are awesome

in my head it's Saturnalia

lol, yeah, but the example works just as well without the specific holiday focus

"if i do everything right, buy the right presents, cook the perfect meal, smile and give thanks, then we will have a perfect christmas and be a real family."

The bargain is struck! Expect Gromthor to take receipt of your soul in 66.6 years.

my parents announced their seperation immediately after christmas dinner, that gromthor's full of shit

Gromthor blames his intern, Terry, who is new at couples counseling.

It's impossible to conflate hysteria and authoritarianism with religion when it inspires works as poised as Herbert and Donne's sonnets.

If you start using words like "we're chosen", "we're the chosen ones", "we have been chosen for this task", then the implication is we are chosen by God, even if your party line professes He doesn't exist.

Ah, but what if your God is science. Doesn't Natural Selection ultimately lead to Chosen Ones? How about the ways you can marvel about the secular splendor of an accidental universe that somehow created life and lead - over the long march of time - to YOU!

it's not a marvel. Nobody's special!

Exactly. Or at least nobody's more special than anybody else. Plenty of new atheist writers seem to use this crutch though, to support why science is so much more awesome/true than religion. Thing is, they fall into a trap which is more embodied in cults than anything resembling a holistic/mystical/spiritual attempt at experiencing the universe.

"The Magic of Reality", etc. No doubt you are using 'magic' in a kind of ironic, wink-wink sort of way. But at the same time you are worshipping a cause & effect system that places YOU at the center of reality.

"It's All Meaningless and We're All Just Random Conglomerations of Particles" wasn't as catchy

It's All Meaningless (Not That There's Anything Wrong With That)

The problem I have with saying "It's all meaningless" is that it implies that there should be a meaning, and that it's kinda sad that there isn't, neither points of which I agree with.

Its interesting what some were saying up thread about there not being much talk of Hell in the NT. Jesus talks more about hell than anyone else in the Bible. In loads of the parables he warns people about the gnashing of teeth etc. check out parables of the sheep and goats and the ten talents for instance.

I assumed that was a typo and was suppose to be OT myself

oh yeah woops

"Ah, but what if your God is science. Doesn't Natural Selection ultimately lead to Chosen Ones?"

was thinkin more about this to be honest:
http://massassi.hobby-site.com/massassi/pictures/episode_3/img/lava_river04.jpg

I think there will one day be a pill for existential survivor's guilt. it will be called, "whiskey"

latest archaeological evidence suggests religion gave birth to civilization

See, this whole horrible mess started with you guys.

The haet twds R-Dawk here is not really understandable to me. His writing on the things he writes about would be better if he wrote just as well about the shoe fashions in ancient Naqada, is that it?

my beef with him is that he's an anti-intellectual jerk

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, October 2, 2007 9:02 PM (3 years ago) Bookmark

it's basically that he feels compelled to make absolutist pronouncements on a subject he has very little understanding of and no curiosity for. he treats religion, one of the major components of civilization, as if it's a childish superstition that can be cleansed away with just a little empiricism. he uncritically adopts the enlightenment/rationalist approach to science and reason, and seems to have no interest in the now centuries-long critique of that very tradition.