Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

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

Who gives a shit about that?

uh yr buddy Dawkins does...?

wk, i apologize if i read that in your defense of Dawkins, since it DOES seem a part of his position anyway, implicit or otherwise. the scientific banishment of religion is unadulterated good for the advancement of humanity, or whatever.

religion isn't necessarily opposed to science, but is often extremely hostile to scientific debunking of religious myth.

^^^truthbomb

religious hostility to science is no better than pseudo-scientific hostility to spirituality.

rm motherfucking e

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.

...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"

pointing out that dawkins' arguments are indistinguishable from the worst sort of religious bigotry does your arguments no favors. this isn't a contest, so you earn no favor by pointing out that dawkins is no worse than the very worst of his opponents. you simply make clear that he is nearly as bad.

and i completely deny science has a more "rightful" claim to engage with questions concerning the origins and "nature" of the material world. it merely has a scientifically valid claim. to the extend that ultimate origins, purposes and meanings can't be addressed at all by science, i'd say that religion has every right to travel in these areas.

wk it's baffling that you are eager to equate two different religious groups calling each other heretics as analogous to empiricists attacking religious myths, seems to undercut yr own position a bit there lol

religious hostility to science is no better than pseudo-scientific hostility to spirituality. they both suck.

there's a slight imbalance of power there though, don't you think? and basically what threads like this prove is that the other side can't express their point of view without getting called ignorant anti-intellectual assholes. but it's apparently cool for every christian in the world to believe that every non-christian is going to hell.

xposts

it merely has a scientifically valid claim.

great stuff, do keep posting here, you're valued

rm motherfucking e

― if white indie hipsters could fly this place would be top gun (history mayne)

^ a big fan of pseudo-scientific hostility?

maybe I should just let contenderizer make me points for me haha

xp

the other side can't express their point of view without getting called ignorant anti-intellectual assholes.

have no idea which side yr referring to here tbh

saying islam LOVES science is about as internet as saying islam HATES music i guess... super annoying in either case

but it's apparently cool for every christian in the world to believe that every non-christian is going to hell.

but not every christian believes this!

why do I bother

it's apparently cool for every christian in the world to believe that every non-christian is going to hell.

why the fuck do you care

what threads like this prove is that the other side can't express their point of view without getting called ignorant anti-intellectual assholes. but it's apparently cool for every christian in the world to believe that every non-christian is going to hell.

xposts

― unmetalled world (wk), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:26 PM (22 seconds ago) Bookmark

again, you're making some kind of nonsensical contest out of this. no one is defending religious intolerance ITT. many, however, are criticizing dawkins' anti-intellectual blanket hostility towards religion and religious faith.

saying islam LOVES science is about as internet as saying islam HATES music i guess... super annoying in either case

yes I made a vast generalization, sorry

It's apparently cool for every ILXer in the world to believe that every Dave Matthews fan is going to hell.

you earn no favor by pointing out that dawkins is no worse than the very worst of his opponents

I'm not talking about the very worst of his opponents, but all of them. I know some people like to pretend that it's just about a few evil fundamentalists or something, but it's not.

xpost

I'm not talking about the very worst of his opponents, but all of them

always with the broad brush...

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

― metally ill (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 11:22 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

wtf

but it's apparently cool for every christian in the world to believe that every non-christian is going to hell.

but not every christian believes this!

why do I bother

― metally ill (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:28 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

these people clearly haven't taken on board the teachings of christ: it's boldface, right there in the book

ut it's apparently cool for every christian in the world to believe that every non-christian is going to hell.

one reason i said way upthread that we need more theology, not less, is precisely to encourage this kind of critical thinking within religion, not just against it.

Dawkins and his ilk are just a new and not very persuasive ethnocentrism, cheerleading the western gestell on to some enlightenment utopia, i imagine.

and anyway, all of the handwringing about what an asshole he is is so stupid. atheists are the most hated minority in the US. Dawkins didn't do that, and what he says doesn't make a bit of difference.

great stuff, do keep posting here, you're valued

― if white indie hipsters could fly this place would be top gun (history mayne)

yes, scientific understandings are validated by scientific methods, it's a self-validating system. don't get your complaint and am confused by the vituperative tone.

the sooner you accept that not all religious people are drooling idiots bent on judging your eternal soul while cowering in fear of the great All-Father in the Sky, the better off you will be

these people clearly haven't taken on board the teachings of christ: it's boldface, right there in the book

Xtians ignore all kinds of shit that's in boldface, right there in the book!

atheists are the most hated minority in the US

lol

surely AnCo fans are more hated

Xtians ignore all kinds of shit that's in boldface, right there in the book!

― metally ill (Shakey Mo Collier)

be fair, it's not much fun if you don't

these people clearly haven't taken on board the teachings of christ: it's boldface, right there in the book

you know what else is in boldface right there in the book? "Judge not, lest ye be judged"

WHOAH

atheists are the most hated minority in the US.

I don't understand the self-pity, especially since this most hated of minorities is gaining traction.

actually, i'll add to my "more theology" desire also "more, lot's more, philosophy of science." contenderizer is right that it's a thoroughly self-referential observational system--this doesn't invalidate its claims, not at all, but it does limit them.

Dawkins and his ilk are just a new and not very persuasive ethnocentrism, cheerleading the western gestell on to some enlightenment utopia, i imagine.

― ryan, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 11:31 PM (19 seconds ago) Bookmark

No, they're just atheists. Atheism is not an ethnocentric concept.

atheists are the most hated minority in the US

lol

― metally ill (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 11:33 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

Look it up.

and i completely deny science has a more "rightful" claim to engage with questions concerning the origins and "nature" of the material world.

call me when religion predicts or explains one single natural world phenomenon.

I don't understand the self-pity, especially since this most hated of minorities is gaining traction.

Not self-pity, I just don't understand what damage Dawkins is supposed to be doing to the cause by being an asshole.

I know some people like to pretend that it's just about a few evil fundamentalists or something, but it's not.

― unmetalled world (wk), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:30 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

but it is. and it's got nothing to do with "evil." the real problem is intolerance ― self-righteous faith in absolute principles coupled with radical zeal. it doesn't matter whether the underlying principles are religious, philosophical, tribal/national or whatever. self-righteous intolerance is the problem, and not all religious people (or cultures) share this disease.

and i completely deny science has a more "rightful" claim to engage with questions concerning the origins and "nature" of the material world. it merely has a scientifically valid claim. to the extend that ultimate origins, purposes and meanings can't be addressed at all by science, i'd say that religion has every right to travel in these areas.

― contenderizer, Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:25 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

the origins of the material world? really? the christians have just as much of a case there? ok! im all for intellectual freedom, and it's your time and everything but yeesh

it's a self-validating system.

contenderizer is right that it's a thoroughly self-referential observational system--this doesn't invalidate its claims, not at all, but it does limit them.

i think this is a misunderstanding of how science works based on a wonky version of it popular among humanities students and faculty, but it's late

idk it is probably because I have a zillion other forms of privilege but I don't really feel that fucking bad & hated as an atheist
like being a woman has complicated my life & interactions with others more than being an atheist has
I live in a religious/conservative part of the country, too, & always have
no one gives a fuck that I am an atheist afaict

i guess that's what irritating about Dawkins, he doesn't want to limit his scientific claims to the realm of science. and i guess that's not totally strange considering that in many parts of the world science and religion are competing explanatory paradigms, but i think he'd be better served by arguing that they really aren't directly competing, and that each is best served by leaving the other alone. it's not an either/or proposition.

if you can show me a form of science that doesn't require an interested/compromised observer, history mayne, i'll believe you.