Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion

[Martin]

I'm a Christian and I rather agree with Dawkins attitudes and disdain for organized religion in modern society. Religion was a powerful tool for ancient societies in that it provided means for leaders to control the masses while simultaneously lending powerful explanatory power which satisfied human curiosity. In modern times religion has become largely irrelevant and even detrimental to society on the whole.

 

An interesting dichotomy, I suppose, but a position I hold nonetheless.

 

I must say that I greatly appreciate this forthright statement of where you stand, blike.

 

You have expressed your view on these issues in less than 75 words.

 

IMO it is harder to do that than people think----not always easy anyway.

You're lucky to have the required clarity and focus. I won't attempt to respond in kind (unless everybody starts doing it and it becomes like the thread topic so you have to )

[Royston]

I'm slightly annoyed the book is so popular in Britain, but not at all surprised...we're not really considered a God fearing nation, the Church of England has been reasonable in it's interpretations of the Bible, and we have an incredibly diverse population...and Christianity has nowhere near the vigour it had say a couple of centuries ago.

 

Dawkins, uses arguments such as 'evidence' to refute belief in God, he asserts his 'faith' in science, and so his arguments can be easily construed as science refuting God...unless the reader knows better. He is a jaded, fed up, scientist, who abuses his authority, to try and sway the layperson...and he's actually doing a good job, hence the book sales.

 

I wish people would stop blaming 'religion' for problems, and start blaming 'people' for the problems in the world. There are plenty of examples where religion hasn't caused problems, as much as religion supposedly has caused problems. It's a completely fallacious argument to blame religion, when really it's the interpretations from groups and powerful individuals that cause the problem, and in some instances using their belief as an excuse to cause conflict.

 

EDIT: Sorry for talking religion when the subject's been banned...wasn't sure how to put my point across without discussing it.

[gcol]

 

EDIT: Sorry for talking religion when the subject's been banned...wasn't sure how to put my point across without discussing it.

 

No problem at all. I mean, Religion can be just so annoying, somehow. All those do-gooders continually sticking their noses into peaceful folks everyday business. All that shoutin' and hollerin' and goddam preaching, makes me want to do some ass-kicking in retaliation, tha's all. Just keep off my grass and I wont put weedkiller on yours. Fair enough?

[Martin]

EDIT: Sorry for talking religion when the subject's been banned...wasn't sure how to put my point across without discussing it.

 

don't understand yr apology here, Snail.

AFAIK the topic of religion hasnt been banned. IIRC one of the mods explicitly said talk about religion

we just do it as the subject comes up in connection with our customary discussions

 

natural part of politics, natural part of the moral and emotional issues that come up in Gen Disc. natural part of just watching the crazy society around us:-)

 

I thought one (or maybe more) mods made this clear.

 

also happily enough the SFN owner (blike) came down and made it obviously OK by outright stating concisely (75 words, neat) where he personally stands

 

cant ask for more

 

if it would make you feel better, go ahead and say what your beliefs and ultimate concerns are in 75 words or less.

 

be easy snail, all is more or less well at least with this little e-world:-)

[Severian]

Snail hits it pretty much on the head I think. I have no complaint with Dawkins holding whatever misguided opinion he likes. What I don't like is that he uses his reputation as a scientist to lend authority to his opinions, when his scientific knowledge (such as it is) has no bearing on the statements he makes. And it is clear that lots of people fall for it (see gcol's comments). To me, that is unethical, and doing this makes him dishonest.

 

I called him a bigot because he makes generalizations about people he knows nothing about, e.g. that anyone who is a Christian is stupid. Clearly this is a false statement, but it is one he makes nevertheless.

 

Statements like, "As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect", demonstrate that he either does not understand science, does not understand religion (or both), or that he is being intellectually dishonest.

[ecoli]

since we are both going by the sound of the titles (not having read the books), would you say that Sam Harris book "Letter to a Christian Nation" sounds more conciliatory?

 

Yes, absoutely. Sounds a lot more rational and intellectual to me.

[bascule]

I called him a bigot because he makes generalizations about people he knows nothing about, e.g. that anyone who is a Christian is stupid. Clearly this is a false statement, but it is one he makes nevertheless.

 

That is quite the strawman. The overarching point Dawkins is trying to make is that natural selection favored young offspring who listened unquestioningly to their elders. If you tell two children "Stay away from the alligator pond" and one listens and one doesn't, then the one who listened will produce offspring and the "listen to your elders" genes will be selected for.

 

However, the same mechanism that provided a means for relaying life-saving information also allowed religions to form. Children unquestioningly accept religion just as they would "Stay away from the alligator pond", then grow up and pass the same information on to their children.

 

It's clear from your statements that you have not actually read what Dawkins has to say on this matter. Nowhere does he say anything to the effect of "anyone who is a Christian is stupid". If anything, he says they're a victim of a particular evolutionary adaptation.

[Severian]

That is quite the strawman.

 

It's clear from your statements that you have not actually read what Dawkins has to say on this matter. Nowhere does he say anything to the effect of "anyone who is a Christian is stupid". If anything' date=' he says they're a victim of a particular evolutionary adaptation.[/quote']

 

I am not sure where bascule is coming from here - it seems that he shouts 'strawman!' at anything he disagrees with. I was merely pointing out why I said Dawkins is a bigot. Since you don't seem to believe me, let me give you some quotes directly from his books:

 

Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings.

 

I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

 

To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion.

 

You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.

 

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

 

Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion

 

Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims. There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science.

 

The Richard Dawkins 'charitable foundation' is even running a story on its web site right now entiled "The real reasons to hate the Pope". Make of that what you will.

[Dak]

Statements like, "As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect", demonstrate that he either does not understand science, does not understand religion (or both), or that he is being intellectually dishonest.

 

sounds like he understands fundamental religon quite well.

 

his quotes, whilst untactfully worded, dont sound bigoted per se, tho he may be over-generalising.

 

i must say that anyone who is willing to dismiss any amount of evidence in favour of what they arbritrarily feel, for any number of not neccesarily particularly good nor accurate reasons, to be true, then they are, in actual fact, not rational. i think it causes alot of the 'evils' in this world, from bigotry to violence, and, well, is just a bit silly really.

 

it looks to me as if he's equating 'believing in a god, and his teachings, in the face of evidence' (eg, creationism rather than evolution) with the above, and 'stupid' with irrational.

 

he kinda has a point. 'i believe in god, for no particular reason, who says x is true' equates roughly to 'i believe in x for no particular reason'. by all means believe, but surely, if evidence is provided that you are wrong, you should modify your belief, rather than being so pig-headedly arrogant, or just plain stupid, as to say 'meh. i believe x, thus x is true, even if it really seems like it's not'; sticking 'in god, who says' in there doesnt change the fact that the above is stupid.

 

you believe in god, who says x. we can see x is not true. ergo:

 

your belief in god is wrong

your belief that god said x is wrong.

god is wrong

the assesment that x is false is wrong

 

are all possibilities. and this is the 'stupid or not stupid' point. people who will simply say 'the assesment is wrong 'cos i beleve thats the case' are, in actual fact, stupid, and the more this is done -- the more new beliefs are adopted to resist admitting that a prior belief (such as 100% litteral truth of the bible) is wrong -- the more one moves further and further away from reality and into cuckoo land. thats genuinely not meant as offensive to religos people -- like i said, believe in god all you want; that is not stupid. it's the belief in stuff that we can tell is wrong, that is stupid, espescially when it gets to rediculous levels.

 

tho, he could do well to remember that not all religos people trust the bible above evidence. many christians will believe in god and parts of the bible, but disbelieve the parts that are contradicted by evidence, so i think 'all christians are stupid' is a tad unfair.

 

eg:

 

a person who accepts, or simply knows nothing of, evolution, and believes in god would not be stupid.

 

a christian who knows of evolution, and who believes:

 

god exists

genesis is litterally true

god planted false fossils

radio carbon dating is wrong

the evidence suggesting radio carbon dating is correct is wrong

the evidence suggesting that the evidence suggesting carbon dating is wrong is wrong is, itself, wrong

evidence of speciation is wrong

speciation cannot occour, even tho no mechanism to prevent it exists

scientists, from all nations and walks of life, are part of a conspiracy to disprove god, yes even the religos ones.

any other evidence contradicting the belief that genesis is litterally true is wrong.

 

all to avoid, for no rational reason, admitting that either god doesnt exist, god was wrong, or -- a pretty easy one to admit -- genesis is not, for whatever reason, 100% litterally true, is, in actual fact, stupid.

 

ones belief does not trump evidence. to think otherwize is stupid, not to mention arrogant and, when we move into ethics, dangerous.

 

so... i dont nessesarily agree with dawkins (possibly) generalisations, but his central points, if applied to the correct type of religos people, are correct. they are stupid and dangerous. and, unfortunately, too common for confort, and in positions of power.

[bascule]

I am not sure where bascule is coming from here - it seems that he shouts 'strawman!' at anything he disagrees with.

 

Here is your strawman, again:

 

I called him a bigot because he makes generalizations about people he knows nothing about, e.g. that anyone who is a Christian is stupid.

 

Dawkins never says anyone who is a Christian is stupid. Those are words you are sticking in his mouth.

 

Here is the definition of strawman, from Wikipedia:

 

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

 

Dawkins position is NOT "anyone who is a Christian is stupid". You are presenting that as being the case, yet so far you have not found any statements from Dawkins which corroborate this position. It's no different from me saying "Severian thinks we should kill all Sabbath-breakers"

 

Since you don't seem to believe me, let me give you some quotes directly from his books

 

Where in any of these quotes does he say anything remotely to the effect of

"anyone who is a Christian is stupid"

 

Honestly, Severian, if you're going to accuse me of calling strawman when none exists, you could at least substantiate how you are NOT misrepresenting his argument.

 

The most basic refutation of your strawman is that Dawkins claims regarding stupidity (which he lists as one of three possible factors, including ignorance and sanity) deal with people who disbelieve evolution. You claim to believe evolution, and you are a Christian, therefore "anyone who is a Christian is stupid" does not follow from any of Dawkins statements regarding disbelief in evolution.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm placing this thread in the padded cell.

 

 

 

(Meaning, keep it up and it gets euthanized.)

[Severian]

Dawkins position is NOT "anyone who is a Christian is stupid". You are presenting that as being the case, yet so far you have not found any statements from Dawkins which corroborate this position. It's no different from me saying "Severian thinks we should kill all Sabbath-breakers"

 

You are wrong: this is his position, and he has stated it publicly in interviews. Just because I can't find a direct quotation where he says just that doesn't make it false. Indeed I have provided several other quotations very much in the same vien.

 

However, since I can't find the direct quote (though I have seen it before) I am willing to withdraw my claim that he said it, and focus on his other comments instead.

 

For example, "I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." This sentiment is calling for the eradication of faith as one would try to eradicate smallpox. Don't you see why this is an unreasonable position?

 

Or alternatively, "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." This is such a bigotted statement, because he does not engage with those who hold this view - he just dismisses them. My wife does not believe in evolution but has a PhD in physics - she is definitely not stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked. But Dawkins chooses to claim she is, thus making him a bigot.

 

Merriam-Webster defines bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". What more can I say?

 

Indeed, his statement is even badly defined - is he criticising people for not believing in evolution generally, or is he criticising people for not believing in evolution by Natural Selection? Is he criticising people who say that most species on Earth are not the result of an evolutionary process, or is he criticising people who say that an evolutionary process could not produce advanced forms of life in principle? I am not sure he understands the difference.

[woelen]

Dawkins is not worth discussing at all. Fundamentally, his quackery is not different from the quackery of some reli-fundies from the deep south of the USA. The circle nicely closes at the extreme ends of the rope. Reli-fundie and anti-reli-fundie meet each other at the extreme end. Such a shortcircuit can lead to a nice fight with lots of fireworks . Crackpots make a lot of crackling noise.

[bascule]

Just because I can't find a direct quotation where he says just that doesn't make it false.

 

You're the one making the statement... therefore you're the one with the burden of proof. You can't substantiate the statement so why is it even worth considering?

 

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." This is such a bigotted statement, because he does not engage with those who hold this view - he just dismisses them. My wife does not believe in evolution but has a PhD in physics - she is definitely not stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked. But Dawkins chooses to claim she is, thus making him a bigot.

 

If she does not accept evolution then she is certainly ignorance of the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of the theory. I don't see how this is any different than say, someone choosing to dismiss relativity... they are either ignorant of the evidence, too unintelligent to comprehend it, or incapible of comprehending anything. Disbelief in evolution is not an intellectually defensible position.

 

Indeed, his statement is even badly defined - is he criticising people for not believing in evolution generally, or is he criticising people for not believing in evolution by Natural Selection? Is he criticising people who say that most species on Earth are not the result of an evolutionary process, or is he criticising people who say that an evolutionary process could not produce advanced forms of life in principle? I am not sure he understands the difference.

 

You present quotes out of context then argue that he's not being specific enough? I'm sorry, this is all a red herring, and one I can just as easily direct at you... you said "My wife does not believe in evolution", well, what does that mean? I don't think Dawkins need delve into the semantics of "evolution" every time he makes a statement about it... the man has written book after book on the subject.

 

I think there are really two core principles one need accept:

1. All life on earth shares a common ancestry

2. All life reached its present form through evolution by natural selection

 

I'm guessing your wife rejects both of these?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Game over.

 

This is the sort of thing that really bothered me about the religion section.

[woelen]

I think there are really two core principles one need accept:

1. All life on earth shares a common ancestry

2. All life reached its present form through evolution by natural selection

We can't know for sure. Funny to see all those people struggle with this stuff all over again. Now we have

1) (Young earth) creationists

2) Evolutionists

 

And I came accross yet another theory, a devolutionist. No young earth. It also supports change of species, just like in evolution theory, but over the aeons species are degenerating (going to a less and less advanced state) instead of becoming more and more advanced.

What it is worth, I don't know, but it is worth mentioning here, just as a curiousity. It is just a demonstration that there are so many alternative theories and we cannot know for sure which is true.

 

http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=1102

 

Don't understand me wrong. I'm not saying that this theory is the answer, but my point is that there are so many theories about our origins, and that Dawkins cannot state that all other points of view besides his point of view are ignorant, stupid, unscientific or whatever nice qualifications he has. It tells more about him, than about the people who question eveolution theory.