Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

godel in math. on and on.

I get the feeling wk's main MO is not being the #1 get-along person like mine is tho.

lol, yeah maybe not. IRL I mostly keep it to myself though due to some bad past experiences.

especially since this most hated of minorities is gaining traction.

― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 11:35 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

what do you mean by gaining traction, other than a few successful atheist books?

increasing percentage of the population in addition to increased visibility yes?

Lots of polls since mid decade have shown how the number of self-described atheists has grown. Here's one. The success of Dawkins and Hitchens' books caused a concomitant rise in the number of stories reporting on the phenomenon.

contenderizer, my problem with your statement is twofold. First, as mentioned, is its treatment of "religion" as an aggregate thing that is "not generally hostile to science." This is a statement with little meaning until we get down into some nitty gritty - which religions? which denominations/sects? what kinds of science? what forms do hostility take where it exists? - and so it's less of a "truthbomb" than maybe a Green-E Stick'em Cap.

The other problem is the implication that this aggregate "religion" is happy to leave "science" alone unless "science" tries to debunk its metaphysical claims, which is … not the case.

Try to be more "without" fucks

^ central tenet of most religions

as to the oppression of atheists, yeah, i don't feel it. i would have called myself an atheist for most of my life. though i'm no longer so comfortable saying that, my core beliefs and values remain basically unchanged.

i've tended to be very open about my beliefs, and have never felt that they were holding me back socially or professionally. the most interesting and intelligent religious people i've met have been very open to me, have never given evident sign that they despise or distrust me. perhaps there's some great mass of religious true believers from whose good graces i will be forever excluded, but if so, our paths seldom seem to cross.

i dunno, maybe just in being an arty, philosophically-inclined city dweller, i place myself in an invisibly fenced atheist's ghetto.

Lots of polls since mid decade have shown how the number of self-described atheists has grown. Here's one. The success of Dawkins and Hitchens' books caused a concomitant rise in the number of stories reporting on the phenomenon.

― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:20 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

Yeah I guess it is on the rise. The numbers for people under 30 seem pretty high.

First, as mentioned, is its treatment of "religion" as an aggregate thing that is "not generally hostile to science." This is a statement with little meaning until we get down into some nitty gritty - which religions? which denominations/sects? what kinds of science? what forms do hostility take where it exists? - and so it's less of a "truthbomb" than maybe a Green-E Stick'em Cap.

The other problem is the implication that this aggregate "religion" is happy to leave "science" alone unless "science" tries to debunk its metaphysical claims, which is … not the case.

― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 5:20 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

well, i tried to explain that a bit by placing myself in the american 20th/21st century. but yes, i'm speaking generally. if we can find lots of specific examples of powerful/dominant religious cultures happily accepting the scientific debunking of their foundational myths, i'll happily concede. can't think of many off the top of my head. will grant that no one likes to have their core beliefs challenged, so this isn't a terribly specific criticism of religion, per se.

carrying on a bit, i do think that religion is in no way intrinsically hostile to science. in fact, for most of history, religion and science have gone hand in hand, with problems arising only when science seems to challenge religious myth or principle. or so it seems to me...

maybe just in being an arty, philosophically-inclined city dweller, i place myself in an invisibly fenced atheist's ghetto.

a fair assumption, really

is obama the first president (modern day at least) to include atheists and agnostics (though i think he uses a euphemistic term like 'nonbelievers' or something) alongside xians, jews, muslims, etc in the tapestry of america or whatever. i can't imagine bush feeling the need to be inclusive, can't recall clinton even approaching it, and there's no way any president before that would've even considered it. it's the one thing really i remember from his inauguration speech.

And thinking more on this religion/science/hostility/debunking thing, take, for example, supposed apparitions of the Virgin Mary. Those tend to be cases where:

- "Science" generally doesn't give two shits except for professional debunkers like Randi or some of the sciencebloggers like Phil Plait.
- The Catholic Church tends to be more skeptical and conservative about them than believers or the non skeptical mass media.
- Said believers get quite tetchy about rationalist explanations about the phenomena.

So we have science not caring, a skeptical church and unskeptical believers who don't want to know from science. What does that say about the relationship among those things? Something a lot more complex than your statement.

carrying on a bit, i do think that religion is in no way intrinsically hostile to science. in fact, for most of history, religion and science have gone hand in hand, with problems arising only when science seems to challenge religious myth or principle. or so it seems to me...

― contenderizer, Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:29 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

Religion isn't intrinsically hostile to anything. But it's intrinsically superstitious, and superstition and science are innately opposed.

Lots of polls since mid decade have shown how the number of self-described atheists has grown. Here's one. The success of Dawkins and Hitchens' books caused a concomitant rise in the number of stories reporting on the phenomenon.

I can't help but feel that figures like Dawkins might have helped some people come out of the closet (particularly some people who used to identify as agnostics but finally realized they were atheists) in a way that wouldn't have happened if he had been the polite, nuanced debater of theology that his detractors want him to be.

i've never moved in a social circle that didn't basically consider religious people retarded. so i have no data.

x-post: i can personally attest his "Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" were of great import to my teenaged atheist self.

All of my family on my mother's side, who were not exactly the churchiest people around when I was growing up, all found religion later in life, so you better believe I keep my atheism largely to myself. They aren't the kinds of folks who can be quiet about it. Even my dad, who I always figured to be an agnostic, has gotten very into "spirituality" following a bout with cancer.

Last Thanksgiving, I hosted my family and my in-laws at our house, and my own sister steamrolled me into having my wife's stepfather, a fundagelical minister, say grace. So, yeah.

But it's intrinsically superstitious, and superstition and science are innately opposed.

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 5:33 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

that's too pejorative. i'd say that religion is inherently metaphysical and spiritual, and that spiritual metaphysics and science are innately different. the presumption that opposition is a necessary component of such difference is a pernicious fallacy.

lol @ the idea that atheists are a "despised minority"

lol @ the idea that atheists are a "despised minority"

― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:43 AM (3 seconds ago) Bookmark

how are they not?

i think we're coming around to agreeing that scientists are a despised minority tbh

ppl may be reluctant to vote for an atheist (maybe), but i think that even to the most devout, atheists are, at worst, pitied, and at best, thought of as misguided

So we have science not caring, a skeptical church and unskeptical believers who don't want to know from science. What does that say about the relationship among those things? Something a lot more complex than your statement.

― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 5:32 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark

sure. but i was thinking of more dramatic examples, like christian hostility to the theory of evolution and scientific estimations of the age of our planet and universe.

few christians seem to have any abiding objection to the application and development of science in ways that don't impinge upon the cherished beliefs of the faithful (i.e., most science).

As an atheist, I've a constitutional aversion to self-pity.

ppl may be reluctant to vote for an atheist (maybe), but i think that even to the most devout, atheists are, at worst, pitied, and at best, thought of as misguided

― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:45 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

Among all minority groups, Atheists were the one that most people said they would not allow their children to marry.

who cares

also, it's not "maybe." 48 percent of people say they would NEVER vote for an atheist. And that's one of the lower poll results.

xp

srsly the only ppl that get het up about "atheists as a minority" are white dudes who want to have something to rail against

how do you go from "oh that poor, pitiable atheist" to "I refuse to let you become a part of my family," gbx?

All we need is an atheist with nerve, rhetorical clarity, and the instincts to know which way the winds are blowing to declare himself for public office.

good luck hailing a cab if you're an atheist amirite

Yeah keep that in mind when we can't do anything about global warming because of Republican Jesus.

As a homo and an atheist, I belong to two pitiable minorities, but neither my family nor my legislature have shunned me for the latter.

"atheists as a minority"

as you yourself said: atheists can hide or gloss their beliefs. anyone cynical enough to run for a major public office (ie one where a person's spiritual beliefs are scrutinized) will just say they're religious and make some anemic gestures to piety. no one's losing their job or getting spit on in public for not believing in god

As a homo and an atheist, I belong to two pitiable minorities, but neither my family nor my legislature have shunned me for the latter.

― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 7:51 PM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark S

this bears repeating

srsly the only ppl that get het up about "atheists as a minority" are white dudes who want to have something to rail against

― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 5:49 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

i don't know that this is true, but i feel that that this is true, spiritually. they are awful, angry libertarian grumpus people looking for something to be aggrieved about.

we're still a minority, bro

i don't know that this is true, but i feel that that this is true, spiritually. they are awful, angry libertarian grumpus people looking for something to be aggrieved about.

― contenderizer, Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:53 AM (26 seconds ago) Bookmark

LOL

thx for sharing your spiritual feelings

as difficult listening hour implicitly said a few posts ago, the paranoia of liberals increases by the extent to which they surround themselves with people who think like them.

as you yourself said: atheists can hide or gloss their beliefs. anyone cynical enough to run for a major public office (ie one where a person's spiritual beliefs are scrutinized) will just say they're religious and make some anemic gestures to piety. no one's losing their job or getting spit on in public for not believing in god

― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:52 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

Gay people can use the closet too. It's fucked up in both cases.

lol phil do you think republicans want to defund the epa cuz of jesus???? really?

Gay people can use the closet too. It's fucked up in both cases.

wait waht

no it's not

no one's denying that atheists are a minority. it's just that....as a straight white dude atheist/agnostic/"buddhist", i think it would be grotesque to claim that my beliefs are in some way hindering my ability to succeed or w/e

matt srsly what is your stake in this?

It IS fucked up that the only way for an atheist to become a part of government is to lie about themselves.

My mom is more aggrieved by my homosexuality than my atheism, and no doubt wishes I would recant both, but no way are the two comparable!