Richard Dawkins, God, and Morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_III

Guest
Richard Dawkins, judging by his comments, would possibly rejoice in the disappearance of religion altogether; but if that should happen, he is left with two dilemmas:

(1) How does he know the world would be a better place since the world has never been entirely without religion?

(2) How does he know the world would not be a truly horrible place since the world has never been entirely without religion?

Your thoughts?
 
Dr. Dawkins has been shown to enjoy holding fast to his distorted view of theology, philosophy, and history. We have good reasons not to take anything he says, outside of biology of course, seriously, but especially in these topics. I know I don’t 😃

Christi pax.
 
Richard Dawkins, judging by his comments, would possibly rejoice in the disappearance of religion altogether; but if that should happen, he is left with two dilemmas:

(1) How does he know the world would be a better place since the world has never been entirely without religion?

(2) How does he know the world would not be a truly horrible place since the world has never been entirely without religion?

Your thoughts?
The circular reasoning of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens disqualifies them from being taken seriously.

They will use a logical train of thought to deny the existence of God and the value of religion, then use the same form of logic to justify their own views.

The disqualifies them from being taken series IMHO.

Shalom
 
Dawkins, an incredible biologist, likes to accuse religious scientists of disregarding science by believing in God. Unfortunately Dawkins proves in his books that his own personal biases on the subject lead him to use pseudo philosophy, false claims and rhetoric to back up his position, which appeal to those not sufficiently educated in philosophy to see through (or to those who’s beliefs are upheld by it). He is incapable of being objective.

Many scientists atheists are actually embarrassed by Dawkins aggressive and false style of dismissing religion. There are plenty of atheists capable of having an interesting rational respectful debate on the subject. I don’t think that they would make the same claim as Dawkins mentioned in the OP.

TL;DR: you are right OP, but it’s not the only untenable position he holds on the topic of religion. There are a few books that rebut The God Delusion. I read one by a peer of Dawkins’, an oxford professor, called The Dawkins Delusion. It was good.
 
Richard Dawkins, judging by his comments, would possibly rejoice in the disappearance of religion altogether; but if that should happen, he is left with two dilemmas:

(1) How does he know the world would be a better place since the world has never been entirely without religion?

(2) How does he know the world would not be a truly horrible place since the world has never been entirely without religion?

Your thoughts?
That’s like asking a slave how they can be sure that life would be better if they were free.

As Frederick Douglass said. “It’s better to die free, than to live as a slave.”
 
Richard Dawkins’ assertions are nothing but bias and speculation based on ignorance.
 
Richard Dawkins, judging by his comments, would possibly rejoice in the disappearance of religion altogether;
Your thoughts?
Once upon a time perhaps… these days…?



The quotation is from a 2010 tweet/text he launched out.

We all have ideal worlds right? Ours would be a world where people have turned toward the Cross. I’m sure his would be a world without religion.

But in practical terms, Dawkins and the “New Atheists” have seen the Light…so to speak…

Or in my humble opinion, the 10+ year sojourn of debating and mocking us got interrupted by two issues - Radical Islam being the most obvious.

Example: Once upon a time the New Atheist could righteously scream at our Evangelical or Protestant brothers and sisters who would be saying something like “Homosexuality is Evil, you all deserve to burn in Hell.”

They’d mock each other and go back to their warm comfy homes and talk about the backwardness/immorality of the other.

The New Atheist in the Present era has to deal with this:



That’s a Homosexual Man being Executed by ISIS by being thrown off the top of a roof.

Years and year and years of Terrorist Bombings, Televised Execution, etc has kind of change the fulcrum of the movements’ opinion of us.

Are we still backward, stupid, horrible human beings to them? To a degree yes.

but as Richard Dawkins quote shows, we aren’t at the top of the list anymore.

The link below is to an example of this shift in opinion - it compares Christian Fundamentalism to Islamic Fundamentalism.

youtube.com/watch?v=mZIspAALwbw

Notice the tone? We are conceived “zany stupid idiots” believing in childish things. In their world view however, we are contrasted against a much darker force.

We are annoying. We shouldn’t exist. But we are overall “harmless”. Whereas our counterparts represent an existential threat to atheists.

Problem 2: Radical Left Wing Politics - Aka Social Justice Warriors

I once asked a group of rather boisterous and committed New Atheists why they were arguing with a bunch of Social Justice Warriors out near UC Berkeley. I assumed, being the religious one in the gathering, i would have been the target for the incessant polemic about Christianity.

They all pointed me to this clip.

youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

Its New Atheist writer Sam Harris and comedian/pundit Bill Maher about to make the typical New Atheist roast of religion, this time centered on Islam, while being interrupted by Ben Affleck who basically called them “Gross and racist.”

So i followed my acquaintances down this Rabbit Hole - after all, i thought Left wing Politics and New Atheism would dovetail nicely…

Boy was I wrong…

I don’t expect you all to watch the following, i just present it as pieces of evidence.

Video entitled How Feminism Destroyed New Atheism

youtube.com/watch?v=emrD6hTKkIY

Video: How the Regressive Left has Become the New Religious Right

youtube.com/watch?v=2NYCJLSE7xE

Summary - basically New Atheism with its almost celebratory transgressive rhetorical nastiness bumped up against something it couldn’t criticize so directly = Western Political Correctness Culture.

New Atheists were free to criticize Christianity… but criticizing Islam was Racist.

New Atheists could mock any religion for not following Evolution, but were called chauvinistic sexists by the Feminists and whatever the hell “non-binary gender” people are (sorry i don’t really get all the language) if they tried to apply Evolutionary Psychology to gender relations.

One New Atheist scientist (link above) put it this way:

"A Christian like those people from the Westboro Baptist Church could mock me, even send threatening emails to me. They can say i’ll burn in hell, they can say i’m immoral, irreprehensible human being. And the matter usually ends there.

The Feminist? She sends a letter to my employer saying i’m a chauvinistic anti-female, promoting rape culture.

The Christian can hurt my sentiments. The Feminist is seeking to get me fired and to ruin my career so i would never get ever hired by anyone ever again.

Friends - which do you think i’m going to take more seriously?"

Assessment: Nietzsche was right

Even if you “killed God”…Now what? 😉 😛

They didn’t even make it to “Atheist Utopia” and they already started fighting and debating each other.

So yes, you’ll find some Atheists hanging around trying to debate us. If what i’ve seen is true they are the tail end of a dying wave of interest.

I don’t mean to say that Atheists are dying off. Rather, their interest in us is.

In a world where the fastest growing religion is one that induces capital punishment for disbelief, and the predominate political culture castigates you as harshly as an Inqusitior for saying the wrong things…we just don’t matter to the movement as a whole anymore.

They have other enemies to fight.
 
So yes, you’ll find some Atheists hanging around trying to debate us. If what I’ve seen is true they are the tail end of a dying wave of interest.

In a world where the fastest growing religion is one that induces capital punishment for disbelief, and the predominate political culture castigates you as harshly as an Inqusitior for saying the wrong things…we just don’t matter to the movement as a whole anymore.
Thank you for the detailed and informative post that supported the above claims.
I don’t mean to say that Atheists are dying off. Rather, their interest in us is.

They have other enemies to fight.
Is that use of the word “enemies” merely colorful language? I see no reason that opponents in a debate need to be enemies of each other. There are plenty of goals that can be shared despite differences of belief.
 
“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings,” Dawkins said. “I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.”… I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse." Richard Dawkins

Yes, Richard. The something worse could be Radical Islam or Atheistic Stalinism.
 
Is that use of the word “enemies” merely colorful language? I see no reason that opponents in a debate need to be enemies of each other. There are plenty of goals that can be shared despite differences of belief.
Rhetorical flourish 😉 Actually, to quote a neologism i’ve heard, we are pretty much stuck with frenemies.

I’ll take a rather popular youtuber as a test case.

Atheism is Unstoppable is a channel run by an American computer programmer who lives in Germany by the name of Devon Tracey. Like most Youtube Atheism channels, his started off targeting stuff regarding Evolution, Ken Hamm, etc. Flash-forward to the present time - he and his followers (and he has -alot- of followers) primary concern is…

1.) Radical Islam

2.) Regressive Left

The Target of his Videos aren’t us anymore - its the Social Justice/Cultural Marxist Atheists who act as what the New Atheists deem as Apologists for Radical Islam.

Some Samples

Video “Manchester Bombing Coverage Shamelessly Diverts to the IRA”

youtube.com/watch?v=e7CrOcg7O-M
Code:
Video: "Yeah BUT a Christian Bombed an Abortion Clinic....Once"
youtube.com/watch?v=VUZf8oZERkw

In both videos, he’s mocking the Regressive Left and Establishment Media’s tendency to what the New Atheists call creating a False Equivalence.

ie: Some Islamic Terrorists bombed something, but well… Westboro Baptists/KKK/the Crusades…so it all pans out in the end.

Make no mistake - Devon Tracey believes us to be deluded, backward, and ignorant. Like Children.

But - in comparison to that segment of atheism that has embraced Social Justice causes “Like a new religion” and its association/apologism for Radical Islam…well… we are literally the least of his concerns because we don’t really pose a threat to an atheists existence.

I use him as an example just to illustrate how far the New Athiests have traveled - from people who used to think Christianity was the number one offender and all religions were exactly the same - to folks who now stress nuance, numerical incidents of religious-associated violence, and the realization that well… not all religions are exactly the same after all. :eek::rolleyes:😉

If you ask for this story from the Social Justice/Cultural Marxist side of Atheism, they tell the story differently of course.

Article Entitled: Chris Hedges Has a Term for Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris: 'Secular Fundamentalists’

alternet.org/news-amp-politics/chris-hedges-has-term-richard-dawkins-and-sam-harris-secular-fundamentalists-video

From this perspective, New Atheism has to be purified of its chauvinistic, white nationalist, and outright retrograde elements (the elements that make it “look like a religion”)…

Which is precisely what the New Atheists are accusing the Social Justice Warriors of being…
 
“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings,” Dawkins said. “I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.”… I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse." Richard Dawkins

Yes, Richard. The something worse could be Radical Islam or Atheistic Stalinism.
One must be careful when equating correlation with causation. Catholic history is not without its barbarities, nor is any system devised by man so far as I’m aware. It’s unclear whether religion is that which drives the behavior of men, or merely that which they use to justify said behavior.

Does society mold itself to their religion, or does their religion mold itself to the society?
 
Yes, Richard. The something worse could be Radical Islam or Atheistic Stalinism.
Note that these are examples of a religious view being forced on others. “Convert or die” type stuff. Christianity no longer takes such an approach, but that has more to do with religion no longer being a matter of state or patriotism in The West. However, it is for groups like ISIS.
 
Note that these are examples of a religious view being forced on others. “Convert or die” type stuff. Christianity no longer takes such an approach, …
Christianity never took such an approach. Are you thinking of the Crusades or the Inquisition? These never were terrorist movements of the Islamic type that you must convert or die.
 
What religion were the KKK?
Thought i should post the New Atheist Response to this Shrodinger…

Video: **ISIS isn’t a Problem because the KKK existed Once…
**

(yes he’s saying that Sarcastically)

youtube.com/watch?v=RhJ1kxV7Zj4

That’s Atheism is Unstoppable again, pushing the envelope once more about the creation of False Equivalence. Video is about 2 years old i believe as he highlights what he and those who agree with him see in the reporting of terrorist violence - namely the penchant to either minimize its connections to Islam or to point out the iterations of religious violence in the West to “cover” for what has happened.

Some Samples of their insistence of Skewed Media Coverage.

Video “Manchester Bombing Coverage Shamelessly Diverts to the IRA”

youtube.com/watch?v=e7CrOcg7O-M

Video: “Yeah BUT a Christian Bombed an Abortion Clinic…Once”

youtube.com/watch?v=VUZf8oZERkw

Playing Amateur Anthropologist, I decided to scroll through the comment section…

We live in interesting times when People who would have normally fought Charlemagne over our religion 10 yrs back are in agreement of his viewpoints - at least concerning Islam.
🤷

From my foreigner position in this matter, its both Fascinating…and Strange.

It seems like the primary division isn’t even religion vs. non-religion anymore.

If anything, Political Outlook seems to predominate - with atheists and religious who bend toward the Left/Liberal spectrum in agreement with each other. While all the Classical Liberals/Conservative Atheists/Religious go in the other direction…
 
Christianity never took such an approach. Are you thinking of the Crusades or the Inquisition? These never were terrorist movements of the Islamic type that you must convert or die.
A few Christians did approach conversion like this, like Charlemagne with the Saxons, but it was very rare, and usually coupled other reasons (that Saxons kept raiding the Franks).

This approach was taken by Christians not really to deal with nonbelievers, but rather heretical Christians, especially since heresy at many times was a kind of anarchism or other kinds of rejection of the polity, rightly or wrongly.

Christi pax.
 
Christianity never took such an approach. Are you thinking of the Crusades or the Inquisition? These never were terrorist movements of the Islamic type that you must convert or die.
When Christianity was intermingled with government, the religious practice became a matter of loyalty to the state. As such, European history has several instances in which belonging to the wrong denomination resulted in death or other punishments.

It’s not a problem of Christianity but a lesson against Christianity or any faith getting mixed with politics.
 
Always, the fundamental teaching of Jesus was not that we make war on each other as a method of conversion.

That is strictly a Muslim methodology of conversion promoted by the Prophet himself…

During the Reformation when Christian States (Catholic versus Protestant?) made war on each other it was generally not for the sake of conversion, but rather for the sake of conquest and dividing the spoils. They were not behaving like Christians ought to behave, but they certainly must have suspected there was no biblical warrant for behaving so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top