religion/Dawkins etc.
Submitted by neosatus on Tue, 2007-09-11 11:57.
Chit Chat
Didn't mean to get off topic in the other thread, so will continue this here.
I must admit that I did take it as hostility. Granted, I didn't think you were being malicious, just passionate, but I thought you came on a little strong. No intent to harm, no foul. Just be mindful of my oh so delicate feelings 
Oh believe me, I have no problem being hostile. I think expression through words is infinitely better than say, physical expression. We might have many less people 'going postal' and suicides etc if people felt free to express themselves, as opposed to the oppressive 'moral highground' that is used today. (People calling others childish etc for using "profanity" etc, and blanket censorship of many expressions in most of our so-called 'freedom' type societies)
I just wanted you to know that I wasn't being hostile because I wasn't, not because I think it would be "bad" to be.
Douchebag isn't meaningless. It's an insult. I think that he's being a dickhead. I think he's arrogant, dismissive and, as a social scientist myself, talking out of his ass. The idea that religion is responsible for the social phenomena he's accusing it of is simplistic in the extreeme.
Yes, I indeed took it as you meant it, an insult. What I was after is the cause of the discontent, and it seems you're giving reasons so, awesome. Hm, he's never come off as arrogant to me, and dismissive.. seems not too accurate as I define it. He goes to great trouble to examine many angles of religion/s and and never dismisses ALL aspects, but simply the ones that are truly causing distrous effects. I don't see him as attacking religion just because he doesn't believe in them. People believe in bigfoot and UFOs and chupacabra and a virtually endless supply of other similarly unlikely things and I never see him addressing these. I see him addressing the specific aspects of religions that causes so much of the misery and strife that we see in our culture daily.
I haven't read the book "The God Delusion" but I've seen his one-hour documentary called "The Root of All Evil?" which is the documentary version of the book. I then watched an hour long debate about the documentary that Dawkins participated in.
Well.. I wouldn't call them(there are two: that one, and "The Virus of Faith") a documentary version of the book. They touch upon a couple of the many angles that the actual book takes. Some of the main points being that anything created must be less complex than that which created it. Example: computer -> human -> god/s -> and then?... and then??...
It is also a counterpoint to the debate that goes something like this:
Theist: "So.. if the Big Bang created ALL THIS, what created the Big Bang?" (Which is not a good question to ask in general, but they often dismiss it as anything worth knowing if it isn't The FINAL answer that they are looking for.
Atheist(or whathaveyou..) "So.. if God created ALL THIS, what created God?" (Which is essentially the same question asked of the Big Bang, yet the theist has no problem at all with this as a conclusion.
One of the other main points, probably the one on Virus of Faith, is mostly about how children are being indoctrinated at such young ages etc and the effect this has from political influence to murderous beliefs and how religions get a pass on much of this simply BECAUSE it's religion. Sam Harris actually goes much more into these types of effects of religion in his works.
So while you may disagree with what I have to say, I think you go a little too far when you say I'm blatantly spreading lies about him.
I disagree with some of what you said BECAUSE it's not the truth. Pointing out that you're saying he said something he never said is "going too far"? Maybe you might think about being less sensitive. If I'm wrong about something I like to be told, especially if talking about someone else. I didn't say you were purposely being deceptive (knowing what he really said, but spreading information that contradicts), but you did indeed make a claim that just wasn't true.
On the other hand I'd like to say that a great deal of what you were saying I very much agree with. I honestly think you would get a kick out of Danneau was saying if you knew how similar to what Dawkins says is with what you were saying WHILE you were bashing Dawkins with his own points. hehe, it really is quite comical. You're likely just misunderstanding what he said or what someone else said.
I also agreed with what you said about belief. Not religious belief--as it seems more and more the term belief is being taken as unquestionably meaning religion--but belief in the unbiased use. Such as.. when we believe what most people say in general until or unless they lose credibility. Who checks every little fact on the news? If we were to be absolte cynics about everything we'd have little time to do anything else BUT fact-check. If we find a news outlet that we generally find to be truthworthy we generally believe what is reported and we generally 'have faith' that if they are not being truthful that some other organization will call them on it(whatever 'it' is). Good or bad, there are only so many hours in the day, and we pretty much have to have faith and believe people sometimes.
I'm not confident enough to say that Dawkins has never once said that God does not exist. So I'll just conceede that point. But what he has said is that if you believe in God you are deluded, that faith is a process of non-thinking and that it is time for men of reason to step up and put an end to this dangerous thing called religion. He has said while the existence of God is impossible to prove, so is the existence of a teapot in orbit of Venus. The implication is clear. He doesn't believe in the existence of God. That's fine. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is A - telling people that do believe in God that they're simpleminded and B - pretending that science has something to do with it and C - pretending that his form of converting the world is somehow different. Science cannot prove nor can it disprove the existence of God. He, clearly, has gone beyond that position and said that it is so improbable that it's to the point of sillyness and that you're deluded if you believe it.
I don't know why you and others seem to take such great offense to the term deluded. Would you be just as open to the religion of toaster-worship including government funding that some religions get today? Would you be just as open minded to toaster-worship in schools that is equivalent to what is being taught in schools and indoctrinated into children too young to be able to critically think? Would you be just as accepting of being morally oppressed into respecting the toaster worshipers?
The point of this is not to be silly but to show how we accept some myths, and at the same time reject others and laugh patronizingly at those that are JUST AS CREDIBLE and likely, like those of Zues, or Ra.
He gives a good example along with the idea that children are predisposed to believe what they are told when they are young in that those that do not are less likely to survive. Example: "Don't go near that water. There are crocodiles in it". Unlike some species, we depend on our parents for survival for many years after we're born and need to learn from them as well. If we didn't believe our parents about things and rather went testing every little thing for ourself, then very likely we wouldn't live long enough to pass on our genes.
He obviously doesn't believe in the existence of God, but he doesn't claim or pretend to 'know' otherwise either. Mostly he's trying to show what these beliefs are doing to us etc.
Of course science has 'something to do with it'. When people say that dinosaurs lived only a few thousand years ago science has nothing to do with it? When we 'so intelligent' humans believed the earth was flat, science had nothing to say about it?
When bloodletting was common and surgeries were performed without antibacterials and clean instruments science had nothing to do with it?
When it was believed just last century and were 'agnostic' about the ability to ever operate on the human heart that science had nothing to do with it?
When people who obviously have never even tried to learn or who don't understand how evolution really works and say "no.. I don't believe in randomness" (Mike Huckabee--Presidential candidate) science has no duty to say otherwise?
Of course science can't disprove the non-existence of something. By the definition of (empirical)'evidence' alone that makes it impossible. That's not 'science's' fault or problem. Who or what CAN answer an impossible problem?
It's not silly to give this much credibility and give all these free passes to these 'old religions' when newer just as uncredible, unprovable, immensely unlikely beliefs are not? Just look at mormonism, and people who believe in 'the rapture'. Both were inventions of the last couple centuries and are quite hilarious. Both have very large followings and are salvationist. Both teach that life on this Earth is just a temporary stepping stone to a greater end, and the rapture believers just CAN'T WAIT for the end of the world because that's when they get to leave this painful existence.
Silly? I think it's a good deal more than silly.. I think it's incredily scary for those of us that would like to see things change in this world, the one we DO know about.
Why is someone a 'douchebag' because he wants to see things get better rather than giving in to beliefs taught around the world to children that are wholly dependent on these people?
It's not the absence of belief, but that's my opinion.
Well you're welcome to your opinion, but I really don't care about the word as much as the definition. There are dictionaries that define one way and dictionaries that define the other, but all I'm asking is you look at how I define it so you know what I mean. If you read what Dawkins says you'd see he says the same thing.
Fundamentalism works the same for everyone. It's the strict adherence to the principals of a belief system that is often charactarised by the belief that that system is infalable and that other systems need to be destroyed.
Umm no? Fundamentalism is just a word like any other. Sometimes you need to look at the context to be able to see the way it's being applied. I showed you how I define atheism, and that it's not a belief. If you ask me if I believe in god/s I simply say no.
If someone asks me if I believe in The Tooth Fairy is simply say no. This doesn't mean I believe there are no tooth fairies... This means I have no reason to believe in such a thing and to debate about it is silly. This is what I mean by disbelief. It's a nonopinion. What do you say if you're asked about the Tooth Fairy?
Quinn is not an Atheist, he's an Animist.
Yes.. but that's also his definition of the word. I went browsing through his Q & As but couldn't find it.. but I remember him talking about the original defintion of Animism from (I think) the 1800s and that it wasn't even close to how Quinn himself defines it.
The point I'm making is that it's pointless to get caught up on words, when meanings are often received differently and they also change over time.
Why don't I call myself an animist? Because Quinn's definiton is far different from what any other is. For me to go around saying that to people who don't understand the context, would be further away from what a good deal more people mean when they say atheist.
For those that define atheist as such, in my mind(and most atheists), is just as wrong as those that believe there are gods. To say "there are no gods" is a BELIEF. It's a claim that cannot be proven.
a means 'without'. theism means 'belief in supernaltural god/s'.
atheism of course then means, without the belief in supernatural god/s. nonbelief. absence of belief..... which is absolutely different than belief of no gods.
Anyway, like I said this distinction is misunderstood and I point it out when needed.
Quinn himself concedes atheist as meaning those who believe that there are no gods, and I don't blame him or anyone else--it's not uncommon. What matters is the context and I have provided you the context of what I mean.
Quinn also defines animism as clearly different from the other definition/s and again--he gives the context and that's what matters.
I did find a few Q & As that help show this:
The Question (ID Number 109)...
Could animism be referred to simply as a creed or philosophy and humanity's essential proclivity toward not religion but belief systems?
...and the response:
I wouldn't personally refer to them this way, but there is no one right way for people to refer to things. Animism, however, isn't a belief system, it's a value system. You don't have to "believe" anything to be an animist.
The Question (ID Number 112)...
Ishmael taught us to stop looking for things to believe in. But if humanity is religious by nature, humanity will always look for or create things to believe in. Animism is just another belief, even if it is wonderful and sustainable. Can you reconcile this contradiction?
...and the response:
Beliefs are about things that are either factual or not. Reincarnation either happens or it doesn't. Jesus either rose from the dead or he didn't. You go on living after death or you don't. Animism is not a belief but a worldview: The world is a sacred place and we are part of it. The factuality of this statement is not the issue. To say that the world is a sacred place is to make a statement about values, not facts. It's a statement about what you mean by "sacred," just as "money can't buy happiness" is a statement about what you mean by "happiness." To put it all very simply, animism isn't a belief system, it's a value system.
The Question (ID Number 534)...
In Providence, you describe how you became disenchanted with the Catholic Church. You described how the Church's actions seemed to reject you. I know this isn't quite the case, but it serves well enough for me to pose the question. Why did you automatically assume the Catholic Church was speaking directly for God, as they claim to do? I have been raised Catholic and I began to realize that it was just a big show. I assumed that the Catholic Church could not speak for God, that he could only speak for himself. See, I was still clinging to the thought of a singular, heavenly, benevolent God. What made you decide to abandon GOD instead of just the structure of the CHURCH?
...and the response:
I didn't become disenchanted with the Catholic Church but with the God of the Abrahamic tradition (which includes Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and so on). This God appears to be, from his history, not a wise and benevolent ruler of the universe but rather a bungler, a snoop, and a monster. Since such a God is really a contradiction in terms, I conclude that no such God exists. In other words, if there is a God--it isn't that one.
As I think I said at some point before, Dawkins isn't attacking religion because it's wrong--this would be impossible and pointless. He's attacking religion's effects for the most part, and yes challenging beliefs that are causing the effects.
I am interested to hear more about your work involving religion and it's effects. I'm very interested in identity and how forces like organised religion and nationalism are used to maintain order in hierarchical systems so I get the feeling I could learn some things from you. Perhaps you could start another thread where we could talk about it?
Well my 'work' isn't anything tangible or anything like actual written books/essays etc... yet. I still have much research to do, but yes effects is the key word. One of the major aspects is science because we are constantly learning more and relearning what we thought we knew. Simple things like mistranslations even have lead rise to incredible beliefs (or reinforcement of them) and to be able to show this is an amazing thing. Good examples of this are "Red Sea" instead of "Reed Sea" and the mistranslation that lead to the myth of the 'virgin' Mary who is of course now, all but deified.
These are just a couple of the perhaps hundreds of beliefs that have already been 'debunked', but of course those firm believers want nothing of them anymore than they want of other things we know about like evolution. They like to throw the word "theory" around but obviously they don't know what a theory in scientific terms means. They think, because of the word 'theory', that the matter of evolution is still in question. It's not. They don't even read "The orgin of species" so they don't know that it's not the Theory of evolution. It's the "Theory of evolution by Natural Selection". It's the theory of how evolution works. We still don't know exactly why Gravity works the way it does but we know it exists and we know evolution exists.
Why do I focus on religion? Because they're content. They think they know. And that false knowledge has lead to not looking for the truth. And I'm not tring to force anyone to look for anything.. The people who simply aren't looking for the truth and care to do other things are not the ones who are suicide bombing and all the rest of it. It's not that people have wrong beliefs. I couldn't care less about Bigfoot beliefs. Bigfoot? Great. Go have a blast camping and combing the forests--it's probably great exercise. It's not this that is causing the problems. It's the people--often the poor, miserable, tortured people who have absolutely no comforts or joy in life--it's these people that take the salvationist beliefs with open arms as their one and only hope. The suffering and the salvationist religions go hand in hand through and the world and throughout history.
This is why I also want to focus on inequalities because the suffering poor practically need these religions to keep them going, the hope that they may not have a good life now, but in the afterlife etc. And if we, as the woldwide culture that we are now, can make life better and stop the exploitation then maybe people won't need salvationist religion. And I try to make sure that I remember to make clear salvationist part because it's not all religions that are acting as a sedative, as a.. psychological painkiller, as the message of "it's ok, it'll all be over soon".
I guess my simplest form theory is that if people no longer need the assurance that 'the suffering will be over soon'(because there is no longer, in general, massive global-wide suffering) then they can be open to ideas like Quinn's. But right now, for the most part, they want nothing to do with it. They don't even want to look at the proven FACTS let alone the 'theories' and predictions that we're killing ourselves and we likely won't be alive as a species.
I saw a poll taken in the U.S. in which the majority BELIEVES that Jesus will 'come back' and the world will end in the next 50 years. And this is one of the wealthiest countries of the world... (Though the people are hardly wealthy--full-time minimum wage is THOUSANDS less per year than the 'poverty level' etc) The wealthy are the very few.
If I were to walk up to the average person, according to that poll, and tell them "The world will likely be ininhabitable as a species in the next 200 years unless we make drastic changes" they'd think that's a great thing! In fact it's not only great,it's wonderful and they can't wait for it to happen! (And I might even get a clever crack due to using the word 'species'. Maybe something like... "Species? We're human, not animals..")
That's basically my reasoning for what I'd like to focus on and so on. Not that's it's better or worse than other things--I think it's important for many people to do many different things from ALL angles possible.
What do you work on? or would like to work on etc. I'd love to hear about it.
The Heart of the Matter
Submitted by nene on Wed, 2007-09-12 16:55.
Hey --
Okay... my two cents...........
Hm, he's never come off as arrogant to me, and dismissive.. seems not too accurate as I define it. He goes to great trouble to examine many angles of religion/s and and never dismisses ALL aspects, but simply the ones that are truly causing distrous effects. I don't see him as attacking religion just because he doesn't believe in them.
I think, perhaps, that this may be another case of the intellectual that doesn't come off so well when speaking. I have not read The God Delusion for a couple of reasons. The biggest being that every interview I have seen with Dawkin's on the subject (and one documentary, I do not know which one) has left me with the impression of arrogance and dismissiveness that Matt is talking about. I don't have much -- if any -- use for many of the people that Dawkin's has talked about/with but at the same time, I feel no need to listen to him diatribe against them Seems like a waste of my time. It may be that in the book he is very even-handed... but in real-time I have not seen any evidence of that.........
Not religious belief--as it seems more and more the term belief is being taken as unquestionably meaning religion--but belief in the unbiased use. Such as.. when we believe what most people say in general until or unless they lose credibility.
There is another sense of the word 'belief' however, and this is the one that causes all of the argument. It is the belief we all have in our own world views/assumptions/etc. And every time that this argument comes up, those of us that find 'fundamentalist athiesm' as awful as any other fundamentalist attitude, point out these type of beliefs, the conversation grinds to a halt. Because, generally speaking, fundamentalist athiests don't believe that they carry any such beliefs. But Quinn's work -- showing us our own, taker mythologies -- should end that debate here without question, shouldn't it? We all have beliefs and assumptions even when we do not see them as such.
I don't know why you and others seem to take such great offense to the term deluded.
Because it is an insulting term. It is meant to be. When you tell anyone that they are incapable of telling 'reality' from 'fantasy' whereas (of course) YOu are capable of telling the difference, you are belittling them, dismissing them and basically telling them that they have no right to thier opinion, because, well... because YOUS SAID SO. No discussion, no consideration... just WRONG.
Would you be just as open to the religion of toaster-worship including government funding that some religions get today?
You are conflating two different issues. I personally don't believe (and the founders seemed to agree) that the government should have ANY involvement with these things. But if some person or persons want to worship toasters, who am I to tell them they are wrong? And who are you to tell them they are wrong? Or Dawkins, or Hitchens or anyone else?
Why is someone a 'douchebag' because he wants to see things get better rather than giving in to beliefs taught around the world to children that are wholly dependent on these people?
He is not a douchebag because he wants to improve the world... he is a douchebag because he is dismissing billions of people as delusional. On the other hand, he could try reaching out to people, find common ground, help find valid solutions to some of the problems he sees.... instead, he is as much inciting war as any other fundamentalist.
It's the people--often the poor, miserable, tortured people who have absolutely no comforts or joy in life--it's these people that take the salvationist beliefs with open arms as their one and only hope. The suffering and the salvationist religions go hand in hand through and the world and throughout history.
Absolutely.... so a useful endeavor would be to address the causes of this suffering rather than dealing with the symptom -- religious fundamentalism. Same old same old... treat the symptom rathe than the disease and you WILL fail. And in this case, all you do is alienate those people that may not have decided which side of the fence they choose to be on. More radicalism, more extremism, more division.
I saw a poll taken in the U.S. in which the majority BELIEVES that Jesus will 'come back' and the world will end in the next 50 years. And this is one of the wealthiest countries of the world... (Though the people are hardly wealthy--full-time minimum wage is THOUSANDS less per year than the 'poverty level' etc) The wealthy are the very few.
If I were to walk up to the average person, according to that poll, and tell them "The world will likely be ininhabitable as a species in the next 200 years unless we make drastic changes" they'd think that's a great thing! In fact it's not only great,it's wonderful and they can't wait for it to happen! (And I might even get a clever crack due to using the word 'species'. Maybe something like... "Species? We're human, not animals..")
Remember, How to Lie With Statistics. I have no doubt that more and more people are becoming fundamentalist. But I am pretty sure that the majority do NOT literally believe that Jesus is going to regtunr to Earth and initiate the rapture in the next fifty years. I'm sure the poll questions were something like 'Are you Christian?' 'Do you believe in the bible?' 'Do you think the world is going to hell?' 'Is Jesus your personal lord and savior?' and so forth... leading people to the final question, probably worded very carefully, so that they felt 'yes' was the only answer consistent with the total string of questions...............
Janene
Statistics: lies, damn lies
Submitted by Esau on Wed, 2007-09-12 20:23.
Also, I'm willing to bet that it was the majority of the people polled who believed that Jesus will return in the next 50 years, but that doesn't necessarily mean the majority of Americans do. If that poll was taken in the Bible Belt, then yes, I'll bet that's what you get for an answer. But if you spread it around the country, taking in responses from New England, California, the Northwest, etc. etc. then you'd probably get a different result.
I was channel surfing a few months back, and by an act of the Devil, it came to rest on FauxNews. Dawkins was being interviewed by Bill O'Reilley, and I saw the same sort of attitude Janene did--smug, arrogant, and belief that he was right, and Bill O is an idiot (that may be...he is certainly a liar, but that's a different discussion) along with quite a bit of the U.S. population. Sorry, but that's a turnoff (there's a saying about first impressions...)
(the title of this post comes from a member of the Houston Ishgroup...this is how she referred to a statistics class she took once upon a time)
This sounds like fun
Submitted by Ghost on Thu, 2007-09-13 17:38.
Hey, Adam.
I'd just like to say from the start, I think you've put together an excellent thread here. I've really liked what I've read so far. Kudos to you, my new friend.
I just want to say that Janene has eloquently, truly so, said a lot of the things that I am thinking. I imagine a lot of what I'm about to say will be redundant thanks to her.
There's a ton of stuff to comment on here, which is a good thing. If I miss something you really wanted to talk about, just let me know and I'll come back to it.
Oh believe me, I have no problem being hostile. I think expression through words is infinitely better than say, physical expression. We might have many less people 'going postal' and suicides etc if people felt free to express themselves, as opposed to the oppressive 'moral highground' that is used today. (People calling others childish etc for using "profanity" etc, and blanket censorship of many expressions in most of our so-called 'freedom' type societies)
I just wanted you to know that I wasn't being hostile because I wasn't, not because I think it would be "bad" to be.
I do have a problem with hostility. I grok your argument about expressing yourself. Another friend of mine, Devin, once said the same thing. While I agree with it in principal, I don't know how well it applies here.
We're just discussing ideas here (with a side order of making friends). The only reason to get angry with an idea is if you think it doesn't have the right to exist. I come from (or am constantly trying to enroll in) the school that says there is no one right way to live. So for me, no idea is a wrong idea so there's no reason to be upset. Other people don't have to be wrong in order for me to be right.
So while I'm all for people expressing themselves, it can harm the situation.
In human relations we talk about expressing your emotions vs... fuck, I forget the proper terms.
One way is to say, "fuck, god damn it."
The other is to say, "I felt upset when you said X."
The former doesn't help aid communication, it sets up barriers. The latter allows someone to let the other know what they're feeling in a non-accusatory manner, it leaves room for a response or an appology from the other person and leaves room for the conversation to continue.
So in futre, when dealing with me in particular, I'd appreciate it if you were more specific about what I write the has upset you or otherwise put you out rather than allowing your emotions to manifest themselves as hostility. Make sense? It simpl, I feel, aids in interpersonal communication which is difficult enough to master when all we have is text to communicate with one another.
He goes to great trouble to examine many angles of religion/s and and never dismisses ALL aspects, but simply the ones that are truly causing distrous effects. I don't see him as attacking religion just because he doesn't believe in them. People believe in bigfoot and UFOs and chupacabra and a virtually endless supply of other similarly unlikely things and I never see him addressing these. I see him addressing the specific aspects of religions that causes so much of the misery and strife that we see in our culture daily
Janene nailed this one.
My problem is that religion isn't the problem. He's accusing religion of something that is a property of something that is used by all hierarchies that pass the Dunbar limit (populations beyond 150 people). That thing in question it's what I call CECIs, or CENTRALISED EXTERNAL CULTURAL IDENTITIES.
- Centralised in that the tenets are managed by a central body; the apex of the hierarchy's pyramid or the rulership class; those in power.
- External in that the individual has no control over the tenets of the doctrine because they are centrally managed; unless the individual is in a position of power within the hierarchy. Therefore the individual must bend their identity to match that of the CECI and not the other way around.
- Cultural in that the identity applies to an entire culture rather than an individual and also that it simply has to do with culture.
- Identity in the sense that all individuals that are members of the hierarchy define themselves primarily by their allegiance to the doctrine. In other words they define themselves in terms of WHAT they are (Muslim, American, insert noun here) rather than WHO they are.
Examples of CECIs include:
- Nationalism
- Organised Religion
- Contractualism
In hierarchical societies, like all civilisations, the protection of the whole (the empire) is paramount. When the preceived external threat to the whole increases (more specifically, the threat to the sanctity of the CECI), the reaction is to increase the level of fealty demanded of the adherents, ie, people must become more devout. This is a phenomenon calld the Zed effect after resident cool guy Tony Zebrowski.
So the rise of fundamentalism we see in Islam and even in Evangelical Christianity is simply a result of the Zed effect. And so Dawkins' attacks on religion are actually INCREASING the level of fundamentalism around the world.
Furthermore, science is a mythology just like any other. Atheism is a docrine just like any other. It is a CECI.
So Dawkins is not only fomenting fundamentalism, but is actually trying to replace it with another CECI that, in time, will exhibit the exact same "problematic" characteristics that he is now decrying. Watch the two part episode of South Park with Richard Dawkins. It's exactly the idea they explore (that and Dawkins pounds Garrison in the ass, it's fucking hilarious).
This is why I say his arument is simplistic. He's saying what you're doing is bad, what I'm doing is great, when it's all bad. His crusade is no different than any other, his brand of fundamentalism no different than any other.
One of the other main points, probably the one on Virus of Faith, is mostly about how children are being indoctrinated at such young ages etc and the effect this has from political influence to murderous beliefs and how religions get a pass on much of this simply BECAUSE it's religion.
I think it as a lot to do with framing.
I think that yes, religion gets a free pass.
Yes, religions, particularly in their fundamentalist state, more or less vigorously indoctrinate children and make demands on them. Just watch Jesus Camp and you'll want to throw up. It's reprehensible.
But what Dawkins is suggesting is that Reason is ABOVE the things. He's offering Reason as a replacement for religion for that reason. So I think that because he has a simplistic understanding of the subject matter, his solution is simplistic.
A civilisation that uses reason or Atheism as a CECI will indoctrinate their children just as vigorously under similar circumstances.
I honestly think you would get a kick out of Danneau was saying if you knew how similar to what Dawkins says is with what you were saying WHILE you were bashing Dawkins with his own points. hehe, it really is quite comical. You're likely just misunderstanding what he said or what someone else said.
I find this remarkably difficult to believe.
I don't know why you and others seem to take such great offense to the term deluded. Would you be just as open to the religion of toaster-worship including government funding that some religions get today? Would you be just as open minded to toaster-worship in schools that is equivalent to what is being taught in schools and indoctrinated into children too young to be able to critically think? Would you be just as accepting of being morally oppressed into respecting the toaster worshipers?
Like Janene said, it's meant to be inflamatory.
His book could have been called, "A look at the merits of Atheism." But he called it, "The God Delusion." What is implied is, you are wrong. It's an attack and people are swift enough to pick up up on it.
This for me is the entire problem. Dawkins seems to feel that in order for him to be right, religion must be proven wrong...
Let's be honest, his book didn't just pop up in a vacuum. It's 100% a reaction to the fight between evolutionists (like himself, it's what he does for a living) and creationists in the classrooms of America. Both sides have decided that it is a zero sum game. There can be only one. So in order for evolution to triumph, religion must be discredited. Enter Dawkins and his book.
"Look, religion is bad because suicide bombers exist." Nevermind that atheist scientists invented the nuclear bomb which has killed more people (by orders of magnitude) than any suicide bomber. Or, more simply, the bombs strapped to the suicide bomber.... That was a cheap argument on my part. It's infinitely rip-appartable. But it shows what Dawkins is doing. He's trying to discredit religion so that his alternative is left standing as the only viable alternative. It's like what they say in Thank You for Smoking. I don't have to prove that vanila is better than chocolate, I have to prove that chocolate is bad.
As for toaster-worship. I do not believe in objective truth. I believe there is no one right way. I believe that all models are wrong, but some are useful. Science, to me, is just another mythology. It's a good one. I like to hang with it for the most part, but the idea that science can one day allow us to interact with and understand the universe with unerring perfection, that it is somehow the best way imaginable, is hubris of the highest order. Science can't even answer two simple questions. Why was does the universe exist and why was it created? I doubt it ever will. Sadly, it won't ALLOW itself to answer those questions because of it's own rules. Those questions are verboten to scientists. So how can it be the be-all end all way to have a relationship with the world. Sometimes we need faith. Faith doesn't prove nor does it disprove, it believes.
The whole question of education would be solved if teachers said, "Some people believe this while others believe this." Why? Because that's the fucking truth! But it won't happen because CECIs need to be absolute in order to fulfil their function. So, just as in Highlander, there can be only one. If I had my druthers? We'd teach evolution, creationism, toaster worship, spaghetti monster, and reincarnation. I think that if our goal is to help children think critically, it's better to give them all the information we can and let them sort it out themselves; crazy talk, I know. But the truth is, that's not what's going on. Evolutionists and creationists are duking it out for control of a method of indoctrinating children. They both want to be able to say, THIS is the way it is, no other way, thank you, now go home. The idea that one is somehow better than the other is laughable to me.
Science is only a few hundred years old and yet it assumes that it can magically replace 60 000 some-odd years of how our species has interacted with the world. It can compliment it sure, clearly it has, but replace? I don't buy it. But here it has been, dutifully attacking those most purile of things, superstition, belief and faith, primarily because science itself was a reaction to the use of divine truth as a means of control. And here it is, centuries later, trying to exert that same control.
These things that Dawkins accuses religion of are not a problem of a hierarchical system, they are a feature. Science and reason as CECIs are not above this.
And let's be more specific, science has become the politcal tool of Atheists. It is the hammer with which they bash down theist's walls. Dawkins wrote a politcal book, not a scientific one.
Dawkins is saying, just like every other person trying to take power, why doesn't this culture just sit down, shut the fuck up, accept our supremacy and play nice? Why do they have to be so uppity?
As a black man, I call bullshit. As a Bemba whose tribal belief system has been wiped out by cultural imperialism, I call bullshit. As an intelligent human being who can make my own decisions, I call bullshit.
Nobody has the right to tell me how to think.
Silly? I think it's a good deal more than silly.. I think it's incredily scary for those of us that would like to see things change in this world, the one we DO know about.
Imagine that religion is erradicated tomorrow and the world becomes an atheist paradise. Will the world truly be saved? Will we stop devastating the ecosystem? Will we stop developing more efficient ways to produde and consume? Will we stop being Takers? Not a chance. The problem isn't religion, the problem is Taker civilisaiton. Religion is just ONE of the ways that it keeps itself from coming apart at the seams. Taker civilisation doesn't NEED religion, it can keep itslef together with ANY CECI and it's quite content to indoctrinate its children and kill people by the millions without religion.
Hitler was a nationalist, not a theist.
But the Jews were theists, one might point out. It's just an example of two CECIs duking it out. Nationalism vs religion. Religion vs Religion. Atheism vs Religion. Atheism vs nationalism. It all works out to the same thing.
Dawkins is just spreaing the same old lines from Mother Culture. If people were just better, then our civilsiaiton would work just fine.
Dawkins isn't a douchebag because he wants to make things better, he's a douchebag because he's attacking people. If he had an army... need I say more?
Well you're welcome to your opinion, but I really don't care about the word as much as the definition. There are dictionaries that define one way and dictionaries that define the other, but all I'm asking is you look at how I define it so you know what I mean. If you read what Dawkins says you'd see he says the same thing.
I am very, VERY, sorry. You're absolutely right. I mean that in all seriousness. I agree so fundamentally with what you say here that I'm kicking myself for allowing myself to go there even unintentionally.
Umm no? Fundamentalism is just a word like any other. Sometimes you need to look at the context to be able to see the way it's being applied. I showed you how I define atheism, and that it's not a belief. If you ask me if I believe in god/s I simply say no.
Good for the goose 
You asked me to explain fundamentalist atheism. I did.
If someone asks me if I believe in The Tooth Fairy is simply say no. This doesn't mean I believe there are no tooth fairies... This means I have no reason to believe in such a thing and to debate about it is silly. This is what I mean by disbelief. It's a nonopinion. What do you say if you're asked about the Tooth Fairy?
Ok, you see atheism as a non-belief. That begs the question, is Dawkins a true atheist then?
As I think I said at some point before, Dawkins isn't attacking religion because it's wrong--this would be impossible and pointless. He's attacking religion's effects for the most part, and yes challenging beliefs that are causing the effects.
But his solution seems to be to eliminate religion and furthermore, to REPLACE it with reason. Remember the vacuum. I don't think he's as kind-hearted as you make him out to be. I think he has a very specific agenda here and that ironically, it is more of the same of the thing he's saying he wants to get rid of.
Why do I focus on religion? Because they're content. They think they know. And that false knowledge has lead to not looking for the truth.
Here's something I personally have a problem with. I don't think the pursuit of truth is a worthwhile or even an attainable goal.
Science thinks it knows too. Divine truth said the heavens only know and they tell us through the medium of their avatars on Earth, namely, the people who are ruling over you. So shut up and listen and don't question. Science said, fuck all that, I'm not being controlled by people saying, "it's true just cause I say so", I want to look for the truth myself. But the meme that was transfered to science from divine truth when this new memeplex evolved was the idea that truth is ABSOLUTE. That as long as you're looking for truth, it's absolute truth that you're looking for. The problem with absoulte truth is that all other truths necessarily have to be wrong in order for your absolute truth to be right. So any truth that conflicts in the least with science is dismissed. But there is other wisdom out there, TONS of it. How much wisdom was lost in the march of the Takers across this planet; destrouying the wisdom of entire societies because it didn't jive with the absolute truth of the time?
All of this is to say that I can't get behind a scientist who says, you're wrong, not because of scientific proof, but because I SAY SO. He's no different than the king who ruled by divine authority.
So I'm not saying that religion is all that, it has all kinds of problems; just like any other CECI. I'm just saying, Dawkins is a douchebag because of his agenda and the way he's pursuing it and that the problem goes way beyond the tired old addage, religion is dumb.
Just to return to the idea of CECIs (because that's a really important idea to me... it permeates all of my work) religion is about as old as civilisaiton. This is because from the inception of ANY civilisation (Taker or no), a CECI is required in order to maintain group cohesion within the hierarchy.
When you look at the modes of communication open to the first rulers of civilisations, right up until the invention of the printing press, it makes perfect sense to create a CECI that is beyond debate. What better way to do it than to say it comes from the gods. You start by saying Truth comes from the king and when people say "well I didn't vote for him" you switch and say, actually it came from God himself who just happens to be speaking THROUGH the king. But now that the methods of communicating have changed drastically, we no longer need our CECIs to be divine. Religions still work just as well as they always have as CECIs, which is why they've survived to this day, but there is now room for others. So others have developed. All CECIs are absolute and inviolable. They have to be, that's how they work. So all CECIs are automatically in conflict with one another because all other CECIs have to be wrong in order for one to be right. Atheism and reason are simply new CECIs. It's no shock that they're in conflict with the religious CECIs. What I feel were seeing here is not an evolution of the human mind to a place where we can finally find perfect truth and transcend to godhood, but just another shift in what CECI is being used to keep the population in check and in line. We won't be saved by the erradication of religion and the triumph of reason. Same shit, different pile.
Y'know, Adam, I get the feeling that you and I are going to have a similar relationship as Janene and myself. Janene and I spend a lot of time arguing about the things we agree on. It'a quite funny. You bring a lot to the table. I look forward to further conversations.
Peace and Love and Empathy,
Matt
Hi Janene, thanks for the
Submitted by neosatus on Mon, 2007-09-17 03:51.
Hi Janene, thanks for the reply.
Quote:
I think, perhaps, that this may be another case of the intellectual that doesn't come off so well when speaking. I have not read The God Delusion for a couple of reasons. The biggest being that every interview I have seen with Dawkin's on the subject (and one documentary, I do not know which one) has left me with the impression of arrogance and dismissiveness that Matt is talking about. I don't have much -- if any -- use for many of the people that Dawkin's has talked about/with but at the same time, I feel no need to listen to him diatribe against them Seems like a waste of my time. It may be that in the book he is very even-handed... but in real-time I have not seen any evidence of that.........
Yeah, maybe not. I'd even say usually not. All forms of communication, in my opinion, do not make it easy to convey exactly what we mean. One word alone can take from one line of text to hundreds depending on different variables. Many Americans think europeans in general come off as arrogant etc. All we know is what we know--what we have experienced or learned. I can tell you I've seen a couple 'interviews'/'discussions'(if these terms can even be used to describe what is little more than a few minutes of dialogue in between commercials, which is what most mainstream television media is) such as the O'Reilly spot etc. I can also tell you that, on these shows, aside from seeming a little rushed he didn't seem noticeably different during his presentations in the Galapagos, and on the videos from Growing up in the Universe, which is geared toward a younger audience and indeed most of those in the auditorium were teens. I'd say he was quite warm to the kids, but that's just me.
There is another sense of the word 'belief' however, and this is the one that causes all of the argument. It is the belief we all have in our own world views/assumptions/etc. And every time that this argument comes up, those of us that find 'fundamentalist athiesm' as awful as any other fundamentalist attitude, point out these type of beliefs, the conversation grinds to a halt. Because, generally speaking, fundamentalist athiests don't believe that they carry any such beliefs. But Quinn's work -- showing us our own, taker mythologies -- should end that debate here without question, shouldn't it? We all have beliefs and assumptions even when we do not see them as such.
You're going to have to tell me what you mean by 'fundamental atheism'. I've already explained how the term atheism was originally (fundamentally) used and how it is hardly how it is used today.. so you saying that "fundamentalist atheist don't believe that they carry any such beliefs." doesn't make sense.
Yes, I agree with what you say about Quinn's work etc, and that's why this whole thing started in the first place, because I came here expecting people to 'know Quinn's work' and so I was honestly quite surprised to see someone (Ghost/Matt) who seemed, at the time, to possibly be a theist, and so I inquired. I inquired because the two 'philosophies' are very much an antithesis of one another. This has since been cleared up. I didn't come here to talk about religion, but it is my personal focus--one of infinite possible, none necessarily any better than the next--and I was asked to go into detail about this and am happy to--and here we are.
I really wouldn't see why many religious topics would need to be discussed here, but it's rarely the choir that needs converting. I would personally LOVE to hear others' ideas that they have on getting information to the masses though. That's possibly the main reason I came here even, to see what others are doing and to know that maybe it is possible to make a world that our children, a few generations down the line, will have a world in which to live.
Because it is an insulting term. It is meant to be. When you tell anyone that they are incapable of telling 'reality' from 'fantasy' whereas (of course) YOu are capable of telling the difference, you are belittling them, dismissing them and basically telling them that they have no right to thier opinion, because, well... because YOUS SAID SO. No discussion, no consideration... just WRONG.
You may think so but I don't think it always is. There's always context. It's a descriptor and if someone takes offense to it that's their problem. One can only tend to how something is presented, and has zero control over how it is received. And I never tell people they are incapable of anything. If I though people were literally incapable of "telling 'reality' from 'fantasy'" then I wouldn't bother to talk about it at all. It's precisely because I do think people are capable that I bother to talk about it. And I nowhere (nor does Dawkins) claim to KNOW the difference. At most I am posing a counter to Pascal's Wager--that the Salvationists are in a state of a form of nihilism. They don't 'live for today', they 'live for tomorrow'. Tomorrow being whatever form of afterlife they believe in. THEY are the ones who claim to know. And that 'knowledge' that they think they have puts them in the position to comfortably do the OPPOSITE of what needs to be done if we want to keep living on this planet.
And nowhere have I said that people don't have a "right to their opinion". People can have all the opinions they want, but it doesn't mean I'm going to automatically respect their opinion as as an equal to all other opinions. For example, I'll be one of the first to point out many of the flaws of the U.S. legal system, but AT LEAST the jurors are required to be presented with all the known evedince and so on, and of course for this to happen they have to actually be there in the courtroom 100% of the time, and in some cases sequestered so that they do not receive any outside influence. Would any sane person really suggest that the opinion of a juror in a murder trial is equivalent to that of someone whose lone source of information came from a few minutes of coverage on their preferred local or national television news organization?
Yet, how often do we, the public as a whole, discuss this among ourselves? Almost daily I see people making their insufficiently informed opinions about almost any given topic! Walk up to most anyone and ask them 'if O.J. did it.' (or substitute any current popculture murder suspect) and short of the jury, all the governemntal and legal professionals etc, there are rarely many others(less than 100, typically) that are in that room to hear all of the information. Why people are so willing to make these snap-judgements I do not know. All I know is that I see it as nothing but pointless to do so. Maybe people feel pressured--as if they 'should' have an opinion, so they make one with no regard to how much information they have. I choose to actually take the time to think and examine if someone else thinks I'm stupid because I don't have an 'on the spot' answer then that's up to them, I guess.
All opinions are not equal and "no discussion, no consideration"? That's absolutely the opposite of what I'm after. It's very important for there to be discussion, and the consideration is what most Salvationists are not involved in. They believe what they were taught when they were young and so did I. They believed in the God and Jesus and so did I. They believed in the Easter Bunny and so did I. I don't blame anyone for believing anything someone who they would naturally trust taught them.. but this is why it needs discussing.
Flat-Earthers weren't 'stupid' or any of the other negative terms, but were they "ignorant" of the truth? YES! Were they "deluded" by a belief that they had always 'known' taught by people who had also 'known' for hundreds of generations? YES!
Are these meant to be ridiculing comments? NO! They're simply (by definition...) descriptions of their current state of being, not comments about them as a person and no implications made anywhere that they are flawed or different from anyone else.
You are conflating two different issues. I personally don't believe (and the founders seemed to agree) that the government should have ANY involvement with these things. But if some person or persons want to worship toasters, who am I to tell them they are wrong? And who are you to tell them they are wrong? Or Dawkins, or Hitchens or anyone else?[/quote}
My point regarding government involvement was not to make a declaration of 'right' or 'wrong'. It was just to point out that some religions (beliefs/views/whathaveyou)get a pass on some things and others do not. I completely agree with you, and that is why I mentioned it, because the govenment is involved with these things. For example religious organizations can get a tax-exempt status and other "benefits" but other organizations apply and they are told that they are "not a real religion" etc. It varies from huge benefits from even smaller things like military 'casualties' with "real" religions being able to have their religious symbols put on their dogtags and on their grave stone, and others who have different beliefs are just out of luck.
And I suggest you either read the works of the people you are accusing of saying things, or not make such accusations. It's not about 'right or wrong'/'whether there is or isn't' it's ABOUT how these beliefs are affecting our culture as a whole. I frankly don't give a damn what people believe in, but i DO give a damn about the way those people with their beliefs are affecting me. THEY have the "one right way". THEY would have countless more laws on the books if they had "their way". I won't go into the whole spiel regarding said numerous effects etc, but I really think most people can see much of the effect if they look.
He is not a douchebag because he wants to improve the world... he is a douchebag because he is dismissing billions of people as delusional. On the other hand, he could try reaching out to people, find common ground, help find valid solutions to some of the problems he sees.... instead, he is as much inciting war as any other fundamentalist.
Well I can't speak for him on things I've never heard him say, and I've never heard him say he's dismissing all the billions. I believe it to be an important issue because as long as people think they know, then they will doubtfully be open to anything we'd want to show them about what Quinn and Hawken and all the rest who have long seen the path we're on, and are speaking as loudly and as they can, yet few listen(or worse, they DO listen but they WANT the end to come) I can only think he might have the same logic. But even if this is not the case for him, it IS the case for myself. Dawkins is just one of many who I have learned from and study and I have my own methods in mind.
Quote:Absolutely.... so a useful endeavor would be to address the causes of this suffering rather than dealing with the symptom -- religious fundamentalism. Same old same old... treat the symptom rathe than the disease and you WILL fail. And in this case, all you do is alienate those people that may not have decided which side of the fence they choose to be on. More radicalism, more extremism, more division.
Oh indeed, this is well put and I wholeheartedly agree, for I'm all about cause and effect. From 'War on Drugs' to War on whatever else, I think we rarely, as a whole, look for the actual cause of things, but that's another topic maybe, and I don't have time for tonight.
I would very much rather focus on the cause you and I--and I would assume anyone else here--knows to be true, but I really don't see it happening in one single step. People living for tomorrow don't want to hear about how we can make things better today, in this life/existence/whatever they just want things to be as bearable as possible until tomorrow when they will be with their 72 virgins, and roads made of gold, and all the rest of it. So: I think it is important to address this mindset and challenge these beliefs. Not by any measure of pointlessly trying to 'disprove god' but showing the hypocrisy, showing what we DO know today that we DIDN'T know hundreds or thousands of years ago and so on.
Remember, How to Lie With Statistics. I have no doubt that more and more people are becoming fundamentalist. But I am pretty sure that the majority do NOT literally believe that Jesus is going to regtunr to Earth and initiate the rapture in the next fifty years. I'm sure the poll questions were something like 'Are you Christian?' 'Do you believe in the bible?' 'Do you think the world is going to hell?' 'Is Jesus your personal lord and savior?' and so forth... leading people to the final question, probably worded very carefully, so that they felt 'yes' was the only answer consistent with the total string of questions...............
Yeah, and I didn't even really want to mention it because I don't know the exact numbers and other variables of the data, but I do remember it was on MSNBC and that the question was specific as to the 'returning of Jesus in the next 50 years'. I wish I did have the source (who they commissioned to do the poll) but I've tried to find it online in the past but found nothing, but yeah I'm with ya, polls are often very poorly done and/or biased anyways.
I did a search just now and it's not likely the same poll, but...interesting.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/hope25.shtml
Thanks for the replies everyone, I wanted to reply to them all tonight but won't have time, but I will soon.
The Peanut Gallery
Submitted by Ghost on Mon, 2007-09-17 15:05.
Hey, Adam.
Great post. I want to give you time to breathe but I just saw two things I wanted to jump on. Just a couple more logs for the fire
First, on atheist fundamentalism, I think (and correct me if I'm wrong, girlie girl) that Janene and I are on the same page. Think about any kind of fundamentalism that you know. Islamic fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalism. Think about how closed off and rigid their belief system is. Think about how they want desperately to protect their beliefs. Think about how they're willing to do what it takes to stop other beliefs. Now just swap in atheists and you'll know what we're talking about. Agree with is another thing, but at least you'll get what we mean.
Flat-Earthers weren't 'stupid' or any of the other negative terms, but were they "ignorant" of the truth? YES! Were they "deluded" by a belief that they had always 'known' taught by people who had also 'known' for hundreds of generations? YES!
The difference, in my opinion, is massive. There was INCONTROVERTABLE proof that the Earth was round. It's like if I told you that your hand was on fire, you disagreed, then held up your hand and saw it was on fire. There's no further debate possible at that point.
Dawkins and Hitchens have ZERO proof, incontrovertible or otherwise, that their beliefs, the ones they're selling in their books and their speaking tours, are any more true than those of the people they are attacking. Their beliefs are 100% opinion and nothing more.
So Dawkins is saying tha a few billion people (the theists of the world) are deluded, not because someone has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they believe is not what is real, or even that what Dawkins believes is what is real, but because their opinions don't line up with Dawkins opinions. He is saying they're ignorant of the truth when his truth doesn't have a leg to stand on any more than theirs does. It's like the two blind men arguing about what a painting looks like.
It's massively insulting. If you don't see it that way, that's cool, but I can tell you that more than a few people do take offence to it. So either they're all wrong or Dawkins is actually being insulting.
That was longer than I intended. Anyhoo, hope you enjoy and that you're well.
Peace and Love and Empathy,
Matt
Ghost wrote: First, on
Submitted by neosatus on Fri, 2007-09-21 22:07.
First, on atheist fundamentalism, I think (and correct me if I'm wrong, girlie girl) that Janene and I are on the same page. Think about any kind of fundamentalism that you know. Islamic fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalism. Think about how closed off and rigid their belief system is. Think about how they want desperately to protect their beliefs. Think about how they're willing to do what it takes to stop other beliefs. Now just swap in atheists and you'll know what we're talking about. Agree with is another thing, but at least you'll get what we mean.
Yeah, most belief systems are rigid. But there's no such thing as a non-belief system. Non-belief isn't the opposite of belief, like black and white. It's absent of belief.
If I do as you suggest and swap in Atheist all i get is.. NOTHING, because nothing is all there can be when belief is absent.
The difference, in my opinion, is massive. There was INCONTROVERTABLE proof that the Earth was round. It's like if I told you that your hand was on fire, you disagreed, then held up your hand and saw it was on fire. There's no further debate possible at that point.
Uhh, yeah, but at one point in time there WAS NO PROOF that the earth was round. And not only was there no proof, there was a time where there wasn't even anyone questioning it etc. The "hand on fire" analogy is bogus. You're comparing knowledge we have today with the absence of knowledge at one time long ago. The same absence we have today about religions and other things, except with your logic, you'd be defending the Flat-Earthers against the Round-Earthers saying that there's no proof that the Earth isn't flat..(before there was proof, of course)(Even though, long after proof was given they still did not change their stance)
Dawkins and Hitchens have ZERO proof, incontrovertible or otherwise, that their beliefs, the ones they're selling in their books and their speaking tours, are any more true than those of the people they are attacking. Their beliefs are 100% opinion and nothing more.
Ok.. first of all 'they' OF COURSE have zero proof of non-existence, because trying to prove non-existence is futile. It is NOT possible. Neither are they claiming non-existence. You are you one that is fabricating this lie, not them.
Someone walks up to you and claims that they and their pet dog can actively communicate via smell. Do you automatically believe this without questioning it and asking for evidence? Any rational people would not but you with your logic are defending similar beliefs on zero merit. As a response to those challenging the Dog-Smeller you'd say "Those that would challenge the Dog-Smeller and his ability have ZERO proof, incontrovertible or otherwise, that their beliefs, the ones they're selling in their books and their speaking tours, are any more true than those of the people they are attacking. Their beliefs are 100% opinion and nothing more."
This is absurd and completely lacking of discourse. And in a thousand years when the Dog-Smeller who, after having been defended with such false logic and gaining credibility from seemingly intelligent people, became a lore over the years and in a thousand years had a fairly large following and was engaging in wars along with the rest of the religions, the whole while people like yourself standing beside them saying, "Where's your proof he can't?(or 'couldn't', long after he had died and the ability to even examine such a claim long buried).
So Dawkins is saying tha a few billion people (the theists of the world) are deluded, not because someone has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they believe is not what is real, or even that what Dawkins believes is what is real, but because their opinions don't line up with Dawkins opinions.
Another example:
I walk up to you and tell you that I have an invisible friend named Fred. I tell you that my pal Fred will do anything I ask him to do. He'll act as a personal alarm clock and wake me when I ask. He'll walk through walls and spy on someone if I ask. Are you going to believe this unquestioningly? And whether you believe me or not are you going to defend me to the teeth because 'all opinions are equal'? When people call me deluded are you going to tell them.."not because someone has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they believe is not what is real..."?
He is saying they're ignorant of the truth when his truth doesn't have a leg to stand on any more than theirs does.
Rubbish. Pointing out lack of evidence is not a belief in itself. And "his truth"? What truth? Neither of them nor myself claim to have "The Truth". The theists claim to have such Truth, and we are merely pointing out the lie.
It's like the two blind men arguing about what a painting looks like.
Not at all... It's like one blind man claiming the painting is "this way" or "that way" and the other saying "What are you talking about? You're blind just as I am. You can't see any better than I can, yet you're claiming the painting is "this way"? Alright, show me the evidence of this."
The 'seeing' blind man says he doesn't have proof, and it's a matter of faith.
Then you, having seen this conversation take place, walk up and ridicule the non-believer blind man telling him to prove that the other blind man is wrong.
Complete nonsense.
Fundamentalism and Religious Tolerance
Submitted by nene on Mon, 2007-09-17 15:08.
Hey Adam --
I'm gonna try my damnedest to keep this short, knowing that you have yet to reply to Matt, also... forgive me if I don't keep it totally short 
First a couple of quickies... when I was in college, my major was a self defined program combining Religious Studies and Ancient History and Anthropology... I wanted to understand the roots of Religion (and more importantly Institutionalized Religion) because I felt that the problems of our world could be traced back to that basic shift in spirituality. So when I read Quinn, I found that I had been on the right track, I just hadn't gone back far enough. When I first arrived at IshCon (this sites predecessor) I was in much the same mind set that you are now. After years of discussion, mostly with Matt, in fact, I have come to have a much 'softer' attitude toward the religious and I cannot explain exactly how and why and under what circumstances my attitudes changed... all I can say is that I totally get where you are coming from... and I have come to see that as not quite where I am now. Probably, mostly, because I have come to see that you (the general 'you') cannot change anyone's mind. Only they can do that.... so the best any of us can do is present possibilities and if someone is ready to hear/see them, then it will make a difference. Otherwis, we are just wasting our time. Or worse, creating more extremism (as mentioned before).
Anyway... just a little backstory so that you have a better idea of where I am coming from... which may help you find the intent in what I am saying a little more clearly.........
On the perceived attitude of Dawkin's... I would not be at all surprised if the simple fact that you have read his book... and seen how he presents his argument when he has the opportunity to carefully edit... that may allow you to read HIS intentions better than most. So when he comes off badly to Matt or I or anyone else who has made the comment, you can 'hear what he meant' rather than what he said... if that makes any sense.
"Fundamentalist Athiesm" -- Fundamentalism merely describes anyone that believes in thier own world view as an Absolute. So even an athiest that simply 'does not believe in god(s)' can be Fundamentalist IF they believe that thier worldview is the only correct way to be. So when I say that "[they] don't believe that they carry any such beliefs" I am saying that fundamentalists of all stripes believe that the world IS as they see it, so there is no point in questioning thier own assumptions and attitudes. Because they are 'Truth' in some sense or another.
For example... the 'belief' that you can neither prove nor disprove gods existance is based upon the assumption that only science can 'prove' anything. Maybe that is true... but I have begun to question that axiom. To see that science is merely one way of gaining knowledge about the world. Technically, you might point out that science is the only way to create a proof... but the assumption that knowledge requires 'proof' is part of the worldview. Of course, this is opening a whole 'nother can of worms, perhaps we'll want to discuss Knowledge and Epistimology in another thread some day.... for now, I just wanted to suggest this as a 'belief' that some people hold that may be appropriate to question............
On 'delusion'.... let's throw out another example from left field. If you were to go to Mali and talk to a local and they told you about the food offerings that they leave for the spirits each morning to protect thier homes... would you consider them, like other religious people, to be 'delusional'? Most athiests I have known would.(whether they use that term or not)
Now... if you were to observe this process... the rice prepared, placed in bowls and set at various points around thier home, what would you then think? What if they told you the spirits accept thier offerings, leaving the bowls empty each night? What if you were to observe the dishes over the course of the day... and watched as the ants came and cleaned out the bowls.... now you would really want to point out the truth to them, wouldn't you? But there is a piece of thier world view that you would be missing... they KNOW the ants take the food... and they know that the ants stay out of thier homes because they place the offerings in such a way to make this happen. And as a results the 'spirits' do not invade thier kitchen and get into thier food. hmmmm... so maybe they are not delusional at all. Maybe they found a way to work with thier local environement and the only 'delusion' is YOU (again, the general you) assuming you KNOW what a spirit IS.....
My point, when you hear a certain phrase or word, you (continuing with the general you... can I stop reinterating that from here out? ) you see it as refering to A thing, which you are quick to explain does not exist. God, Spirit, Heaven, Hell... in many cases you probably have a similair understanding of the term to the person you are speaking with... but you never KNOW that until and unless you explore it with them, with an open mind and heart. So tell me again how you can dismiss another's opinion or thoughts without first understanding them?
ANY time that we Stereotype, we are doing just that. There is the possibility of one being BOTH salvationist/evangelical/fundamentalist AND caring about the health and well being of this planet and its life. I'm not SURE how that would work in thier worldview, but I cannot dismiss the possibility.... and decrying all people that fit the stereotype as 'delusional' DOES dismiss the possibility that they have some useful insight, end of discussion.
And I suggest you either read the works of the people you are accusing of saying things, or not make such accusations.
Nowhere did I accuse anyone of saying anything.... I posed a question. I asked who we are, any of us, to tell anyone else that they are 'wrong' in thier view of the world. See above.............
Well I can't speak for him on things I've never heard him say, and I've never heard him say he's dismissing all the billions.
I think you lost the thread of my argument... using the word 'delusional' to describe an entire class of people, dismisses them and thier opinions across the board. Since there are billions of people that fit into the general category of 'religious', he IS dismissing them, whether this is his intention or not.
People living for tomorrow don't want to hear about how we can make things better today, in this life/existence/whatever they just want things to be as bearable as possible until tomorrow when they will be with their 72 virgins, and roads made of gold, and all the rest of it. So: I think it is important to address this mindset and challenge these beliefs. Not by any measure of pointlessly trying to 'disprove god' but showing the hypocrisy, showing what we DO know today that we DIDN'T know hundreds or thousands of years ago and so on.
I totally dig what you are saying, but I'm looking at it from a slightly different perspective. You may be able to get through to some people by questioning thier religious beliefs. But for many, all this does is harden them against anything else you might say. However, most people won't react so strongly if you present real-life ways to live happier. (a few will.... you cannot change anyone else... like I said before... all you can do is offer possibility) So the question, for me, is do we attack a damaging meme, raising people's defensiveness... or do we propogate a new meme that MAY undermine the old AND have positive consequences all on its own?
So anyway... short, not so much, but hopefully someone will find it useful.......
Janene
.
Submitted by neosatus on Sat, 2007-09-22 00:12.
First a couple of quickies... when I was in college, my major was a self defined program combining Religious Studies and Ancient History and Anthropology... I wanted to understand the roots of Religion (and more importantly Institutionalized Religion) because I felt that the problems of our world could be traced back to that basic shift in spirituality. So when I read Quinn, I found that I had been on the right track, I just hadn't gone back far enough. When I first arrived at IshCon (this sites predecessor) I was in much the same mind set that you are now. After years of discussion, mostly with Matt, in fact, I have come to have a much 'softer' attitude toward the religious and I cannot explain exactly how and why and under what circumstances my attitudes changed... all I can say is that I totally get where you are coming from... and I have come to see that as not quite where I am now. Probably, mostly, because I have come to see that you (the general 'you') cannot change anyone's mind. Only they can do that.... so the best any of us can do is present possibilities and if someone is ready to hear/see them, then it will make a difference. Otherwis, we are just wasting our time. Or worse, creating more extremism (as mentioned before).
If you mean, cannot change minds by force, then I agree. But is that what I'm doing atempting, or suggesting to do? No. I'm just communicating information. And I HAVE 'changed minds'. And absolutely, some won't be ready to listen, and presenting possibilities and showing what we do know and comparing it to what we used to know, in order to present this information to those that ARE open to something different.
As it's already been said these beliefs are Systems. They are not one single belief, but dozens or hundreds and showing that out of all those beliefs, many of them centuries or millenia old, a good number of them have been discounted. And this erodes the belief system and casts doubt and paves the way for some people to open the door of possible new belief(or lack thereof).
On the perceived attitude of Dawkin's... I would not be at all surprised if the simple fact that you have read his book... and seen how he presents his argument when he has the opportunity to carefully edit... that may allow you to read HIS intentions better than most. So when he comes off badly to Matt or I or anyone else who has made the comment, you can 'hear what he meant' rather than what he said... if that makes any sense.
"Fundamentalist Athiesm" -- Fundamentalism merely describes anyone that believes in thier own world view as an Absolute. So even an athiest that simply 'does not believe in god(s)' can be Fundamentalist IF they believe that thier worldview is the only correct way to be. So when I say that "[they] don't believe that they carry any such beliefs" I am saying that fundamentalists of all stripes believe that the world IS as they see it, so there is no point in questioning thier own assumptions and attitudes. Because they are 'Truth' in some sense or another.[/quote
Sure. When you want to measure the average surface temerature of the Earth you don't go to one place and take a temperature and call it good. You go to many places of the Earth and the more you go to the more accurate your data will be. And an even less credible method than taking temperatures would be to go around asking people what they think about the temperature of where they live--going to the icy tundras of Siberia and gathering 'data' of "I like living here. This is a good temperature"--and going to the peoples of Arizona and gathering 'data' of "I like living here. This is a good temperature". This is not gathering data though, it's gathering opinion; subjectivity. This is the same subjectivity when people believe other people when they say something about what said person is saying, when it it not at all what they are saying--or when they believe that one group of people are claiming to "know" that there is no god when they are not claiming this--they are not making a claim at all. They are saying "We don't have a belief. We lack lack belief on the matter and we are challenging those that ARE making claims"
For example... the 'belief' that you can neither prove nor disprove gods existance is based upon the assumption that only science can 'prove' anything. Maybe that is true... but I have begun to question that axiom. To see that science is merely one way of gaining knowledge about the world. Technically, you might point out that science is the only way to create a proof... but the assumption that knowledge requires 'proof' is part of the worldview. Of course, this is opening a whole 'nother can of worms, perhaps we'll want to discuss Knowledge and Epistimology in another thread some day.... for now, I just wanted to suggest this as a 'belief' that some people hold that may be appropriate to question............
This is 'fundamentally' misusing the definiton of prove. It's like using the term 'murder' to describe all forms of killing, when murder only describes 'wrongful killing' or 'immoral killing'.
Yeah that is a whole 'nother can of worms'. It's complete lack of discourse and it is self eliminating because it itself is a claim, when the claim says "there is no such thing as proof regarding anything" and it is USING the word proof. Such discussion is madness.
On 'delusion'.... let's throw out another example from left field. If you were to go to Mali and talk to a local and they told you about the food offerings that they leave for the spirits each morning to protect thier homes... would you consider them, like other religious people, to be 'delusional'? Most athiests I have known would.(whether they use that term or not)
Good analogy, and I wouldn't make any decisions on the matter before extensive probing and observation. My initial expectations would be that this is not the case, and that there may very well be an observable reason. But even if there is not an observable reason, it doesn't prove that there are no spirits, and it doesn't prove that there are spirits due to lack of observable reason or 'proof'.
Now... if you were to observe this process... the rice prepared, placed in bowls and set at various points around thier home, what would you then think? What if they told you the spirits accept thier offerings, leaving the bowls empty each night? What if you were to observe the dishes over the course of the day... and watched as the ants came and cleaned out the bowls.... now you would really want to point out the truth to them, wouldn't you? But there is a piece of thier world view that you would be missing... they KNOW the ants take the food... and they know that the ants stay out of thier homes because they place the offerings in such a way to make this happen. And as a results the 'spirits' do not invade thier kitchen and get into thier food. hmmmm... so maybe they are not delusional at all. Maybe they found a way to work with thier local environement and the only 'delusion' is YOU (again, the general you) assuming you KNOW what a spirit IS.....
That is an observable reason is it not? It is a reasonable explanation even though it could be said that the ants themselves are 'spirits' or controlled by 'spirirts'. When talking in 'imaginatory reasoning' there is no end to it. Even if the "God of the Gaps" gets smaller, there is no end to it when speaking in language of non-provability.
"Maybe they're not delusional at all" is not an exhibition of evidence. The mere suggestion that they definitively are not delusional is in itself wrong because where is the proof of that? The lack of proof of the existence of something does not in turn prove existence.
Let me try to show an example:
I tell you that I am now typing this sentence.
[two minutes later] I now tell you that after typing the above sentence I gathered a piece of paper and a pen and I used the pen to make markings on the paper. The markings could be any number of possible things that are unimagineable to you, to any number of things that are not imaginable to you. The markings could be words comprised of letters, numbers, shapes, rough stetches resembling known objects of 'reality' and any number of things that I thought to write, that you never thought(or may never think) to write.
Accepting these as a given I ask you: What do you believe I wrote? (and you can't give an answer like, "You wrote 'something'.")
"Maybe they aren't delusional" doesn't mean that they absolutely are not. It never will 'absolutely' mean this because it inherantly never can mean this.
But this is under the assumption that I have a problem with beliefs just because they are beliefs that are not provable. I couldn't care less about things that are 'not provable' because by definiton they are non-probable..
If a belief is benign like the one you used as an example--ven if a belief exists and it isn't really 'spirits' it doesn't mean that there is not a positive effect as a result. Positive results? GREAT. I'm happy to hear it. I know there are positive effects of some beliefs. Even the Salvationist beliefs have 'good' effects, like the people that choose to help the poor or starving and so on. It's not these things I am against. It is the negative effects I am against.
If your example of Mali peoples were going around by force, making everyone give offerings then I would be against the beliefs. If the Mali were passing laws based on these beliefs then I would be against it--the same way I am against those in our culture that say they believe that adultery is wrong because of their belief, and not only do they think it's wrong, they think it's wrong for EVERONE. NOBODY should be able to commit adultery. I kid you not--some would like to have a law against adultery and would like to see punishment: DEATH... That's right, state sanctioned "lawful" execution.
THIS is the type of 'belief' I oppose, not because it's 'unprovable'(and impossible to disprove), but because of the effect it would have on others--others who may not believe that "adultery" is a crime.
My point, when you hear a certain phrase or word, you (continuing with the general you... can I stop reinterating that from here out? 
) you see it as refering to A thing, which you are quick to explain does not exist. God, Spirit, Heaven, Hell... in many cases you probably have a similair understanding of the term to the person you are speaking with... but you never KNOW that until and unless you explore it with them, with an open mind and heart. So tell me again how you can dismiss another's opinion or thoughts without first understanding them?
I never "explain" these "things" "do not exist". I simply question: What if they are NOT true? Whether they are or are not is never ending. Of course I never KNOW, and I never said I do "know", or pretended to ever "know". In fact I have said that "I don't know and DO NOT claim or pretend to know." Theists are the ones who say they "know" and make claims about how we should live and they go about enforcing it as much as they can, by force, and by 'Law'(which is also force; ethical force).
Nowhere did I accuse anyone of saying anything.... I posed a question. I asked who we are, any of us, to tell anyone else that they are 'wrong' in thier view of the world. See above.............
This is what you said:
"He is not a douchebag because he wants to improve the world... he is a douchebag because he is dismissing billions of people as delusional. On the other hand, he could try reaching out to people, find common ground, help find valid solutions to some of the problems he sees.... instead, he is as much inciting war as any other fundamentalist."
He(We) is NOT dismissing billions of people. We are challenging the beliefs that are effecting us, as a culture, in horrible ways. "Reaching out"...."Find common ground".... "solutions".... Tell me, how do you find common ground when people are going to war because they believe that they religion tells them to? Common Ground IS what is being suggested but it's the Salvationists that do not want "common ground". They want everyone to live their way. You say these things because you have obviously HAVE NOT read what was written. "inciting war"?? What the hell are you taling about? He's pointing out how most wars exist because of these faiths, not at all suggesting war at all. Saying that is just truly pathetic.
I totally dig what you are saying, but I'm looking at it from a slightly different perspective. You may be able to get through to some people by questioning thier religious beliefs. But for many, all this does is harden them against anything else you might say. However, most people won't react so strongly if you present real-life ways to live happier. (a few will.... you cannot change anyone else... like I said before... all you can do is offer possibility) So the question, for me, is do we attack a damaging meme, raising people's defensiveness... or do we propogate a new meme that MAY undermine the old AND have positive consequences all on its own?
Please.. you're the one who is using terms like "attack" and "incite wars"--just like the U.S.'s constant War talk on everything. "War on Drugs", "War on Terrorism", "War on Crime", "War on Cancer", "War on AIDS", "War on ____"
You're 'one of the ones' calling people "douchebag" over and over and over and over and over. And you're saying I'm the type that is being divisive?
The goal is to change minds, to raise consciousness, not force anything.
How does it appear what I have said is not what you have just suggested?
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents...
What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning" -- Max Planck
Dude....
Submitted by nene on Sat, 2007-09-22 13:50.
Hey --
Sure. When you want to measure the average surface temerature of the Earth you don't go to one place and take a temperature and call it good. You go to many places of the Earth and the more you go to the more accurate your data will be. And an even less credible method than taking temperatures would be to go around asking people what they think about the temperature of where they live--going to the icy tundras of Siberia and gathering 'data' of "I like living here. This is a good temperature"--and going to the peoples of Arizona and gathering 'data' of "I like living here. This is a good temperature". This is not gathering data though, it's gathering opinion; subjectivity. This is the same subjectivity when people believe other people when they say something about what said person is saying, when it it not at all what they are saying--or when they believe that one group of people are claiming to "know" that there is no god when they are not claiming this--they are not making a claim at all. They are saying "We don't have a belief. We lack lack belief on the matter and we are challenging those that ARE making claims"
What does this have to do with what I said to you?
Everyone has a worldview. Some few allow mutability in that worldview... some not only do NOT allow mutability, but that want everyone to share thier 'truth'. Those are fundamentalists. You have asked a couple dozen times for us to explain what we mean when we say 'fundamentalist athiest' and I did, so you come back and talk about... what exactly are you talking about?
Good analogy, and I wouldn't make any decisions on the matter before extensive probing and observation. My initial expectations would be that this is not the case, and that there may very well be an observable reason. But even if there is not an observable reason, it doesn't prove that there are no spirits, and it doesn't prove that there are spirits due to lack of observable reason or 'proof'.
You completely missed my point. This has nothing do with proving the western, judeo-christian perception of 'spirits' -- it has everything to do with grasping the concept that you cannot understand another person unless you take the time to understand thier worldview. And you cannot understand another person's worldview if you automatically dismiss them as 'delusional'.
That is an observable reason is it not? It is a reasonable explanation even though it could be said that the ants themselves are 'spirits' or controlled by 'spirirts'. When talking in 'imaginatory reasoning' there is no end to it. Even if the "God of the Gaps" gets smaller, there is no end to it when speaking in language of non-provability.
What 'imaginatory reasoning'? I'm talking about something REAL. It is only imaginatory because it does not fit with YOUR worldview.
"Maybe they aren't delusional" doesn't mean that they absolutely are not. It never will 'absolutely' mean this because it inherantly never can mean this.
Are you kidding me? Now I need to prove that someone is NOT delusional? Are you now starting with the premise that humans are inherantly delusional? If so, then why even bother? If not.... well, then YOU would be the one that needs to prove tat someone IS.
If a belief is benign like the one you used as an example--ven if a belief exists and it isn't really 'spirits' it doesn't mean that there is not a positive effect as a result. Positive results? GREAT. I'm happy to hear it. I know there are positive effects of some beliefs. Even the Salvationist beliefs have 'good' effects, like the people that choose to help the poor or starving and so on. It's not these things I am against. It is the negative effects I am against.
So now we are back to what I said before. If you want to address REAL problems in the world, you need to address the causes of those problems, not the symptom. Salvationist Religion is a symptom of real world problems, not the root cause.
Additionally, these worldviews are systems. You cannot address only pieces. So do something about the root causes, and the whole system changes. Anything less is merely masturbation.
I kid you not--some would like to have a law against adultery and would like to see punishment: DEATH... That's right, state sanctioned "lawful" execution.
Hate to break it to you.... but adultery IS against the law in all fifty states. No, not a criminal statute, but still unlawful. Some people would like to have pretty much everything outlawed. Why not address the premise of 'civilized law'?
I never "explain" these "things" "do not exist". I simply question: What if they are NOT true? Whether they are or are not is never ending. Of course I never KNOW, and I never said I do "know", or pretended to ever "know". In fact I have said that "I don't know and DO NOT claim or pretend to know." Theists are the ones who say they "know" and make claims about how we should live and they go about enforcing it as much as they can, by force, and by 'Law'(which is also force; ethical force).
But you do. That's the part you are not getting. If you tell any person that THEY are delusional, and YOU are not... well that pretty strongly implies that you know and they are stupid.
.................................................................
You have responded to everyone in this thread with nearly unbearable hostility.
Lynn reminds us that science is a tool and nothing more. And, that it is a tool that few of us have direct access to... and you tear her a new one.
Matt explores his thoughts on the matter and you completley dismiss him.
I answer the questions you pose and you go off on a tangent that is totally irrelevant.
Enough is enough, dude. Did you want to have a conversation or are you only interested in 'converting' us?
Janene
.
Submitted by neosatus on Sun, 2007-09-23 03:20.
What does this have to do with what I said to you?
It has to do with the quote above it that I must have botched via typo. I'll repost it here:
On the perceived attitude of Dawkin's... I would not be at all surprised if the simple fact that you have read his book... and seen how he presents his argument when he has the opportunity to carefully edit... that may allow you to read HIS intentions better than most. So when he comes off badly to Matt or I or anyone else who has made the comment, you can 'hear what he meant' rather than what he said... if that makes any sense.
"Fundamentalist Athiesm" -- Fundamentalism merely describes anyone that believes in thier own world view as an Absolute. So even an athiest that simply 'does not believe in god(s)' can be Fundamentalist IF they believe that thier worldview i
Time constraints
Hey, Adam.
Nice.
I'm still umnpacking from a move. I'll respond to this, it just might take a few days. Thanks for taking so much time.
Peace and Love and Empathy,
Matt