Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

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.

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.

this isn't far from being a point in his favour tbph, but the way he goes about is is certainly probelmatic

it's basically that he feels compelled to make absolutist pronouncements on a subject he has very little understanding of and no curiosity for.

So he does the exact same thing to religion that religions do to science?

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.

Kind of like the way most religions treat other religions then?

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.

so just like... oh forget it

if you want me to write a post on what's wrong with religious fundamentalism, i can do that too!

So he does the exact same thing to religion that religions do to science?

wait what? examples plz

Kind of like the way most religions treat other religions then?

in general religions do not use empiricism in attempts to invalidate other religions

try harder

Islam LOVES science for ex

of course i sympathize with those who are frustrated with certain forms of religious belief, but i dont think using absolutism vs absolutism will get us very far--and while it's tempting to think Dawkins et al represent the lesser evil (which seems to me the only real argument in his favor) im not sure that is even the case. to think science will guide us to a more ethical and just society strikes me as naive as best, and possibly no better than religion.

absolutist pronouncements on a subject he has very little understanding of and no curiosity for

see all of religion's false claims about the origins of life, the nature of the universe and other areas that are the rightful realm of science.

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.

see the way many religions condemn other modes of religious belief as being false superstitions. "haha, you believe in jesus, how childish and superstitious" is basically the same thing as "haha you believe in xenu? you're going to hell for not accepting jesus"

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.

most religions uncritically cling to centuries-old beliefs while ignoring any criticism, or doing a bit of handwaving in response to criticism and calling it "theology."

So he does the exact same thing to religion that religions do to science?

Kind of like the way most religions treat other religions then?

― unmetalled world (wk), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:04 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah, to the extent that this is presented as a defense of dawkins-style atheism, it doesn't wash. religion isn't necessarily opposed to science, but is often extremely hostile to scientific debunking of religious myth. that can't be denied. and it's a bad look. religious hostility to science is no better than pseudo-scientific hostility to spirituality. they both suck.

and sure, some religions (not all) religious groups are hostile to other religious groups. it's very similar to dawkins' approach, and similarly counterproductive.

and while it's tempting to think Dawkins et al represent the lesser evil (which seems to me the only real argument in his favor).

how about hard evidence vs. none? It's not really about the lesser evil. One side has proof and the other doesn't.

to think science will guide us to a more ethical and just society strikes me as naive as best, and possibly no better than religion.

Who gives a shit about that? I'm not looking for science or religion or anyone to "guide us to a more ethical and just society." Total strawman

see all of religion's false claims about the origins of life

lol

the nature of the universe

double lol

other areas that are the rightful realm of science.

how many lolz can a man lol in a day