How many of you like Dawkins

[Solus_vistor]

I will certainly concede that the bare fact that someone believes in God is not the problem, nor is the bare fact that someone follows a particular religious tradition.

I prefer to view the way a (contemporary, educated) religious person (like I would like to see myself) views reality** not in opposition** to the way an educated atheist (like e.g. Nebogipfel here, or even Richard Dawkins as long as he stays within his field of expertise) does, but as an extension - enrichment, if you do not mind me saying so - of the latter.

The difference in world views they hold is then not unlike the difference between a black&white photo and a colour one, where the latter adds an additional dimension to the information provided by the former, thus enriching it in principle. I say “in principle”, since, of course, a good quality (technically or aesthetically) b&w photo will convey more info, and/or be more pleasant to look at, than a poor quality colour photo.

Because of this, I prefer to read Richard Dawkins rather than somebody whose faith is showing at the expense of the quality of his/her scientific explanations; because of this I do not mind learning from reasonable (rational, unemotional) atheists about the “exterior” of my faith, its historical or anthropological background etc. Because I am not afraid to loose my faith if I look at it from the outside. Therefore I do not feel compelled to attack the “uninitiated” outsider.

On the other hand, I must agree with KestrelRose when he/she says: “When someone explains to me what I believe and then step by step explains why I am stupid to believe it, I tend to get irritated. Dawkins comes across to me like the second example.”

 

[TheAtheist]

Can i ever find a single place on the internet that can discuss religion without bringing up this man’s name???

He’s a brilliant biologist, i ascribe to his selfish-gene theory, i’m not so taken with the whole “mimetics” field (not the only one - i have a bunch of social scientists who have a bone to pick with him).

Look - i obviously think he’s right (else i wouldn’t have the tag on my name) - but i have to say the man is a bit of a windbag.

And the fact that he’s “the face” of atheism says a lot about the perception of what atheism in this day and age.

Once a upon a time it was simply a disbelief in the existence of god. That’s it.

It has now accumulated such a following in the post-9/11 world, it straddles the line of becoming something akin to a movement.

There is the Great Enemy: The Theists
There are Weaklings: Agnostics, Weak-Atheists, Irrelevantists
There is the Purpose: To Usher in an Age of Reason
There is the Mini-Purpose you can fulfill: To Save them from their Mind Virus

Or to ironically paraphrase Sam Harris: “There’s something cult-like about atheist sub-culture.”

Mind you: that’s the most virulent form it. Frankly, if i just change the words around i’ll end up with a Fundamentalist of some sort.

And i put the blame squarely on Richard Dawkins for forcing me to share my label with the so-called “hordes of Reason.”

With that all said - i need to point out one thing. He’s a great writer, he’s a great agitator, but he’s not a svengali. The God Delusion does not make a hardcore theist into an atheist overnight (and frankly, i agree with most reviews that it just doesn’t at all. Despite stated intent, its mainly aimed at those who already hold those views or who are already considering atheism already).

But he has exposed a wellspring of discontent with religion - simply by motivating those who feel like they need to struggle against the overwhelming forces of ______(insert whatever you wish).

And that part’s real. The response may not be mature, but its real.

And if your only response to this phenomena is to:

1.) Dismiss it
2.) Call it a “teenage phase”
3.) Blame the Devil or them (who are obviously in cahoots with the Devil)

I can guarantee you there’s going to be a lot more of this in the future.

In which case, i better find myself a different label.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

It used to post their about 18 months ago… It was nothing about me being upfront about my faith, it was people posting the most ridiculous and badly thought out rubbish

Oh, okay, so it was just you.

Ironically Yours.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

I checked out the Converts Corner.

I didn’t read them all but I scanned the first 20 or so. Of the ones I read there was not a single devout Catholic who this “brilliant” man convinced.

It was quite a sad read actually. Dawkins appears quite successful in persuading the very young along with others who never knew thier faith to begin with and (from reading thier little blurbs) appear to have been looking for a way out of believing.

If the man were truly brilliant, he’d understand and have sympathy for the concept of the joy people aquire when they truly embrace thier faith. However he doesn’t consider that angle.

Frankly, what is too like about him totally escapes me.

Instead of scanning, you should have read them. I read a fair few and their were some Catholics here and there, as well as people a little older than twenty.

And Dawkins certainly does have sympathy who practice their faith so long as it is for motivation and comfort in life. From what I’ve seen, he does not like those who take it to a completely different level by pushing it on others.

Ironically Yours.

 

[reggieM]

And if your only response to this phenomena is to:

1.) Dismiss it
2.) Call it a “teenage phase”
3.) Blame the Devil or them (who are obviously in cahoots with the Devil)

I can guarantee you there’s going to be a lot more of this in the future.

In which case, i better find myself a different label.

I guess it’s good that you think that the response to the “cult of the atheist sub-culture” is entirely dependent on “us” (I assume you mean Catholics) but as I see it, if there is “more of this” kind of cult-like atheism spreading in society (with the kind of fanaticism that we see already), then ordinary people – even other non-believers or atheists like yourself will knock it down eventually. In other words, the disciples of Dawkins, who will be even more virulent, rash and immature than their master, will provide one of the best arguments against atheism itself.

As it stands, one merely needs to point to some of Dawkins’ hasty and ill-considered arguments and that alone takes credibility away from the atheist position.

 

[TheAtheist]

I guess it’s good that you think that the response to the “cult of the atheist sub-culture” is entirely dependent on “us”

But it really is. Not exclusively on the Catholics - but i’d argue amongst the major world religions your denomination sits at a very critical and dangerous position. The danger part comes from the fact that your right smack center in the middle of the “cross-fire.”

Like it or not Catholics, for those outside of the Christian faith the most identifiable figure is whomever is the occupant of the Throne of St. Peter. Well, that and the current iteration of Jerry Falwell.

And well, we tend not to like the current iteration of Jerry Falwell.

ordinary people – even other non-believers or atheists like yourself will knock it down eventually.

Err…no.

When your Church held the Inquisition, a number of priests and monks coming from the monastic traditions as well as those educated in the Mediterranean style actively and passively resisted the effects of it when it became overly politicized.

A lot of them wound up dead for their attempted good dead.

During the French Revolution, a parallel can be drawn to some of the supporters of that revolution (Deists and Atheists) who kind of had some objections to the ongoing slaughter. Its one thing to cheer about removing a corrupt government, king, and high clergy. Its another thing to go about targeting Farmer Joe and Father Jaques.

They were of course, conveniently branded as anti-revolutionary and were summarily executed.

Push this forward - the Communist Revolution in Russia suffered a similar situation with the Mensheviks vs. the Communist Party after the death of the Tsar … followed by the Stalin’s purge of those who essentially were trying to enact Communism (the true believers if you will).

Don’t get me wrong - we’re far from that point and perhaps will never get there.

Unless…unless what we’re seeing is a new assertive type of Secular Humanism that is a reaction to a decade of growth in Evangelical Christianity and the rise of fundamentalist Islam.

In which case Reggie, you might be the “simpleton Theist who doesn’t understand. We Superior Minded folk need to educate you.”

But me? I’m the Traitor. I’m the “spine-less fence sitter who is obviously not giving their all to the Cause.”

Few people walk away from speaking truth to an enranged mob.

That’s why i say its on you folks.

 

[1holycatholic]

I guess it’s good that you think that the response to the “cult of the atheist sub-culture” is entirely dependent on “us” (I assume you mean Catholics) but as I see it, if there is “more of this” kind of cult-like atheism spreading in society (with the kind of fanaticism that we see already), then ordinary people – even other non-believers or atheists like yourself will knock it down eventually. In other words, the disciples of Dawkins, who will be even more virulent, rash and immature than their master, will provide one of the best arguments against atheism itself.

As it stands, one merely needs to point to some of Dawkins’ hasty and ill-considered arguments and that alone takes credibility away from the atheist position.

Here’s a real stunner from Dawkins.

His origin of life theories are otherworldly.
http://www.xfilesfanclub.com/userImages/productImages/IW2B_Mousepad_TRXF1004_lg.jpg

I’m embarrassed for atheists.

 

[reggieM]

Push this forward - the Communist Revolution in Russia suffered a similar situation with the Mensheviks vs. the Communist Party after the death of the Tsar … followed by the Stalin’s purge of those who essentially were trying to enact Communism (the true believers if you will).

That’s a good analogy and I agree. What seems like childish fanaticism could, indeed, spin into a powerful force that could be very dangerous and difficult to stop.

Unless…unless what we’re seeing is a new assertive type of Secular Humanism that is a reaction to a decade of growth in Evangelical Christianity and the rise of fundamentalist Islam.

In which case Reggie, you might be the “simpleton Theist who doesn’t understand. We Superior Minded folk need to educate you.”

Good points again. I didn’t really think about it that way. The notion that the teenage-internet-atheist horde could really be a problem seemed far-fetched on first thought, but you’re quite right that if this is really an assertive Secular Humanist movement, driven by conditions in the world or by hatred of religion in general, then it will take a much greater degree of resistance than what the rank-and-file public will offer.

Few people walk away from speaking truth to an enranged mob.

That’s why i say its on you folks.

Again, excellent response and I had to re-think and retract my initial position. What you said is definitely true, as we’ve seen through history.

 

[Nebogipfel]

Unless…unless what we’re seeing is a new assertive type of Secular Humanism that is a reaction to a decade of growth in Evangelical Christianity and the rise of fundamentalist Islam.

In which case Reggie, you might be the “simpleton Theist who doesn’t understand. We Superior Minded folk need to educate you.”

But me? I’m the Traitor. I’m the “spine-less fence sitter who is obviously not giving their all to the Cause.”

Few people walk away from speaking truth to an enranged mob.

That’s why i say its on you folks.

I’m sorry, but until I see Dawkins egging on enraged mobs of secular humanists to burn down churches in the name evolutionary biology, I’m going to have to say that you are grossly exaggerating.

I know Dawkins talks about agnostics in robust words… But that’s all he has - words. Leave the sticks and stones to the real fanatics.

 

[Nebogipfel]

I guess it’s good that you think that the response to the “cult of the atheist sub-culture” is entirely dependent on “us” (I assume you mean Catholics) but as I see it, if there is “more of this” kind of cult-like atheism spreading in society (with the kind of fanaticism that we see already), then ordinary people – even other non-believers or atheists like yourself will knock it down eventually. In other words, the disciples of Dawkins, who will be even more virulent, rash and immature than their master, will provide one of the best arguments against atheism itself.

As it stands, one merely needs to point to some of Dawkins’ hasty and ill-considered arguments and that alone takes credibility away from the atheist position.

Please, show me an example of Dawkins’ fanatacism. Please, show me how more people viewing the world in skeptical and scientific way, and refusing to believe something unless there is some objective reason to believe it, will result in angry mobs burning down mosques and churches.

Please, show me how asking why religous doctrines should be exempt from public cricism will result in the KGB knocking on your door in the dead of night and dragging you off to a re-education camp.

I was given a pasting earlier in this thread for taking a narrow and disingenuous view of religion. Are you sure you;re not falling into the same trap?

 

[TheAtheist]

I’m sorry, but until I see Dawkins egging on enraged mobs of secular humanists to burn down churches in the name evolutionary biology, I’m going to have to say that you are grossly exaggerating.

I know Dawkins talks about agnostics in robust words… But that’s all he has - words. Leave the sticks and stones to the real fanatics.

Who said Dawkins would do it? Its never the agitator who gets people going - its the people who are taking part in “enacting the vision” that always go too far. I’m sure Marx would be rolling over in his grave if he saw how people thought it was appropriate to carry out his vision of Communism. Heck, i would argue that of Jesus and Buddha as well.

Sam Harris debated this point with Scott Atran in Beyond Belief 2006. Atran’s also an atheist, but of the Anti-“Let’s go out and make ourselves look like a bunch of idiots.” variety.

Noam Chomsky, Johnathan Haidt, and even Daniel Dennett (who is admittedly an “ally” of Dawkins) have all made similar statements about the sheer stupidity displayed by atheists who expect uniform rationality out of humanity and disparage the socio-ethical beliefs of those who happen to have faith.

In its extreme form - the secular humanist crowns himself as the arbiter of society, a kind of superior human that just happens to know better than the rest of humanity.

This is not different from those fundamentalists who believe that they’ve been empowered by God to go off and make life annoying for the rest of humanity.

The content is different - but the attitude definitely isn’t.

And much like the atheists i cited above, i tend to believe that its the attitude that needs to be eliminated, not a specific doctrine.

However, i also acknowledge that’s the equivalent of trying to bail out the sea with a bucket. I mean, is it a small wonder that the most motivated to do something about any cause, whether it be religion or nationalism, or saving the spotted owl, happens to be young adults?

Perhaps this is all a function of the mylene sheath fully forming in one’s neurons at this time. Or from a social science perspective, this is the age when people are “defining themselves.”

Thankfully - most atheists and people of faith i know either never entered this phase or grew out of it quickly.

A little thing called “real life” got in the way.

 

[TheAtheist]

Well, this is going to get old fast. So let me make my final statement on this:

Many people of faith tend to think of the Richard Dawkins phenomena as a bad case of anger management. Which is kind of incorrect - i mean RD doesn’t go riding down the London Tube accosting people left and right about whether or not they believe in religion.

RD has this little forgotten thing called manners - at least one on one.

The folks who read him however - that’s a different story.

So the most motivated gather together into little groups, read their atheist books, rage online against their theist opponents, and defend their icons. They point to how we’re living in a dark age of religious power, and how they are the vanguard protecting Reason from the tidal wave of superstition.

Blah…blah…blah blah.

So those folks are living in the “New Atheist bubble” much like the evangelical christian (who’s probably saying much of the same thing, just in reverse) lives in his “Evangelical bubble.”

And then there’s everybody else:

There are people who are atheists who go about their business and kind of just laugh at those who spend all their time and effort toward “the cause.” We tend to do more useful things, like work in our labs, run clincial trials, practice our preferred art form, watch a movie,etc.

Then there are theists who go about their business and kind of shake their heads when one of their more radical brethren starts spouting out how they’ve betrayed the spirit or whatever. And you folks pretty do the same thing.

What’s the difference? It is a matter of being “militant” or “moderate”?

No - its not even that in my opinion.

For some people, the question of religion isn’t an important component of their life: rather the question DOMINATES IT.

At their worst - these people have taken the amazing/beautiful complexity of life and human interaction and have simply reduced ALL of it down to a simple choice.

Theist or Atheist.

This is how they’ve judged the world. This is how they “Cut the Pie” so to speak.

Thankfully there’s enough of us who don’t cut it that way.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Good point, and true. Black and white thinking doesn’t discriminate by belief system.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am reading Dawkins’s books lately and I watch a lot of his videos. I think he’s a rational atheist. How many of you like him? Why or why not?

I would like to read him, so that I can know what he says. OTOH, he’s a biologist, & I’m not - so I’d probably not be able to make head or tail of him.​

 

[williamric]

Hi Neb,

Don’t worry ranting is something everyone does, heck, I was ranting… I’m certainly not upset about this

What I do think is a problem, is the fact that religious belief is very often associated with an authoritarian view of the world; that is, the mindset that certain things must be true, because a particular religious authority has said so, and this authority must not be questioned, or at least only insofar as one concludes that this authority is correct.

Fair, but religious authority does not take away ones personal autonomy and/or sense of right and wrong. For instance, if the Pope declared that it was acceptable for Catholics to kill black people at will do you honestly think that Catholics would, en masse, start killing black people?

I would guess that your objection to Stalinism is that it replaces worship of God with worship of a man. My objection to Stalinism, Christianity, Islam, and any other religion, is that it worships at all.

Fair, but you’d have a hard time convincing a Stalinist that they worship something, just like you’d have a hard time convincing a comtempory Atheist that they worship reason (or something like that). The way I see it, we all worship something, religious thought does not die in an Atheist, it just changes form…

I hope I can show that I’m not just ranting…

I’m not sure if we’re still talking about whether we like Dawkins or not…

You have shown it…

Yeah, we probably not talking about Dawkins anymore, lol… Not sure thats a bad thing though

 

[SRLAUREL]

I am reading Dawkins’s books lately and I watch a lot of his videos. I think he’s a rational atheist. How many of you like him? Why or why not?

Best to read someone like John Haught or Alistair MacGrath who take on Dawkins’ inanities and are truly rational as well as believers. One can do good science and think more deeply about theology than Dawkins has the slightest notion about. He is a hack: a superficial and biased thinker who gives even atheism a bad name (for it IS possible to be a serious and credible atheist, inadequate though that might be!). Half truths, straw men, outright misrepresentations and apparently NO IDEA about the really serious work being done by both scientists and theologians on the relationship between science and religion.

Sincerely,
Sister Laurel M O’Neal, Erem Dio
Stillsong Hermitage
Diocese of Oakland

 

[Sunflower15]

I haven’t read Dawkins. However, I wanted to add to the thread that I am VERY grateful that I am not only Catholic, but also the product of Catholic education from 1st grade until college. The reason I say this is that we have inherited a rich tradition passed down to us by incredibly great minds, who were very intelligent and rational. I studied Philosophy with a Thomistic studies base [St. Thomas Aquinas] who insisted that our beliefs had to be rational and intelligent to be true [and tested them], since we were created by an intelligent and rational God, who made us in his image and likeness. The dilemma is that science evolves, and since it keeps changing, according to latest discoveries and theories, it seems to not agree with our timeless, unchanging, absolute truths AT TIMES, but in the end, the truth agrees and converges…
For example, in the 80’s, I met a very sharp girl from Jugoslavia who mentioned that her old grandmother still believed in Heaven & angels, but that she knew those beliefs were just superstition since the cosmonauts had gone to the heavens and saw no such things! Of course, the problem here is that they were not talking about the same “Heaven”… That is how we see discrepancies between science & faith.

 

[SRLAUREL]

I haven’t read Dawkins. However, I wanted to add to the thread that I am VERY grateful that I am not only Catholic, but also the product of Catholic education from 1st grade until college. The reason I say this is that we have inherited a rich tradition passed down to us by incredibly great minds, who were very intelligent and rational. I studied Philosophy with a Thomistic studies base [St. Thomas Aquinas] who insisted that our beliefs had to be rational and intelligent to be true [and tested them], since we were created by an intelligent and rational God, who made us in his image and likeness. The dilemma is that science evolves, and since it keeps changing, according to latest discoveries and theories, it seems to not agree with our timeless, unchanging, absolute truths AT TIMES, but in the end, the truth agrees and converges…
For example, in the 80’s, I met a very sharp girl from Jugoslavia who mentioned that her old grandmother still believed in Heaven & angels, but that she knew those beliefs were just superstition since the cosmonauts had gone to the heavens and saw no such things! Of course, the problem here is that they were not talking about the same “Heaven”… That is how we see discrepancies between science & faith.

Anyone interested in the relationship between science and religion really should read John Haught’s work. There are several really excellent books available, but among them Science and Religion, From Conflict to Conversation, and Is Nature Enough? are quite fine. The first is an introduction to central issues and indicates how we have moved from conflict to far more than this so that both science and theology are enriched; the second is a sustained argument with scientific naturalism and is divided into chapters on central topics like religion, life, emergence, intelligence, purpose, reality, seeing, suffering, death, etc. So is God After Darwin, and then Deeper than Darwin.

One of the things theologians point out to scientists is their very assumption that the world is intelligible and can be known is an assumption which approaches faith (some call it pre-faith). There is no way to prove (or disprove) the assumption, but to do science at all, the assumption MUST be made. It is astounding that some scientists never actually pause to examine the presuppositions and assumptions that allow them to even begin to do science, much less pursue it with passion and integrity.

Sister Laurel M O’Neal, Erem Dio
notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com

 

[wasmit]

A genuiine atheist should, I always thing, have something of a laissez fait attitude to us poor misguided believers (hey if that’s your bag, if that’s what does it for you…) There, is. however, nothing laissez fait about Richard Dawkins.

I once had the laissez faire attiude you mentioned, until I discovered the problems that religious belief leads to:

-suicide bombers
-airplane hijackers
-the acceptance of bigotry, especially against homosexuals, women, other races.
-Jesus Camp
-innummerable wars in the middle east
-millions of people financially taken advantage of by charismatic leaders
-human rights abuses against women in muslim countries, e.g. stoning to death for adultery.
-the inquisition
-the crusades
-elimination of critical thought
-the “age of stupidity” in the US
-bombing of abortion clinics
-the phychological abuse that homosexual teenagers are subject to in religious households
-the Dark Ages
-etc

 

[1holycatholic]

I once had the laissez faire attiude you mentioned, until I discovered the problems that religious belief leads to:

-suicide bombers
-airplane hijackers
-the acceptance of bigotry, especially against homosexuals, women, other races.
-Jesus Camp
-innummerable wars in the middle east
-millions of people financially taken advantage of by charismatic leaders
-human rights abuses against women in muslim countries, e.g. stoning to death for adultery.
-the inquisition
-the crusades
-elimination of critical thought
-the “age of stupidity” in the US
-bombing of abortion clinics
-the phychological abuse that homosexual teenagers are subject to in religious households
-the Dark Ages
-etc

I think you should elaborate you views.

In another thread.