Richard Dawkins' Brand of Atheism

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

A strong argument that Dawkins makes in The God Delusion is that it is too simplistic to characterize fundamentalists as having perverted true faith and belief, and to characterize fundamentalists who commit atrocities as somehow psychopathic.

A point that I took away from the book was that if faith or belief is incapable of being operationalized in such a way as to examine it rationally, then how is it possible to distinguish mainstream faith, traditional faith, fundamentalist faith and so on? That is, how can it be said that the faith of the fundamentalists is in any way different or less valid or less accurate or what have you from the mainstream? The problems aren’t in fundamentalists, they are inherent in religion.

(I also finished reading his chapter on the use of the Bible as a source of morality - he makes a devastating critique of that suggestion, but since we don’t seem to have anyone here arguing that the Bible is a good source for moral prescriptions, I’ll spare the details.)

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
At convincing them they’re wrong? I very much doubt it. But what it does do is make the argument more reasonable, and makes their position look much more unreasonable. Probably won’t convince a hard believer, but it might make give people something more to think about. And hey, getting people to consider the situation more is always good.
[/QUOTE]

No argument about that. I over simplified my statement. What I meant was I think we have a chance, however slim, if there is hard evidence to point to. When you address an unfalsifiable belief the argument has to change and becomes more difficult.

I think you’re hung up on putting it so starkly; I’m not suggesting that moderates are deliberately trying to help fundies, or that if moderates didn’t use that methodology fundies would be treated as the fools they are. I’m merely suggesting that it’s an aiding factor.

Perhaps, I first responded to a poster who said the liberals and moderates are more of a problem because of the support they lend to fundies.

What you seem to be saying is “I guess it might have an affect, but there’s all these other things that have an affect too, so in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter”. Possibly. But that doesn’t deny the idea that it is supportive of that methodology.

That may be why I resist the idea that the liberals are more of a problem. I can agree that in general when a traditional belief is very widespread it becomes much easier to accept it and harder to reject it. People assume since so many believe it it must be true. I tend to separate beliefs God belief is 1 but the details of God belief can be different. God as bearded man in the sky is different from God as nature, or universal consciousness. What I’m having a hard time with is the suggestion that sharing a belief such as belief in the Holy Spirit somehow supports the belief that being gay is sinful. Is that what is being suggested?

Well, by arguing that the Holy Spirit doesn’t exist, I would imagine. But this is besides the point. I have little interest in arguing for or against the existence of the Holy Spirit (unless pushed). On the other hand, I do have an interest in trying to argue against fundamentalism. Every little helps.

So do I in specific areas.

Besides, this sidesteps the actual point being made; it’s not a question of “How can we remove all these foundations?”, though it can be at times. It’s a question of “Does one, reasonable, well-thought of group using one methodology make a moronic, hateful group look better if they use the same methodology?” I’d say yes - and I don’t see how you could think otherwise.

I guess I’m being dense then. AS I said, I can see that a widespread belief is easier to accept and harder to reject. If that’s the extent of support we’re talking about I don’t reject it.

I disagree. I think most religion comes down to telling people what the truth is. Philisophical people may seek the truth, and that can include religious believers. But religion as a whole seems pretty ready to tell people that they have these certain answers and certain truths.

I’d agree that a component of some organized religion is keeping people within the fold and that often means sharing the same doctrine and dogma. When they present that dogma as the truth I think that presents an opportunity. Is it the truth you’re interested in, really? If they worship Jesus they’d have to acknowledge that Jesus taught to seek the truth over keeping the traditions of men. Hopefully, a seed can be planted. Whether it will take root or not, it’s worth the attempt.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Obviously secular inspiration is different from Biblical inspiration. Our president seems to think he is inspired, and see how that turned out.
[/QUOTE]
How different is it? As a musician I know the feeling. At times rather than feeling “I created this” it feels as though “I was allowed to see it” or “I touched the source of all creativity”

At times it seems as if we allow and encourage the labels to separate us.

I’m of course not claiming that liberals directly support fundamentalists. But accepting inspiration opens up a window, and the fundies have a simpler story to tell. And, is there any evidence for any inspiration at all, or is that a matter of faith. If X amount is acceptable by faith, why not Y > X amount?

Ahhh, so are you saying we should simply dismiss inspiration? IMHO thats the wrong route, not only because I think it’s futile, but because it seems to be deciding what is true without evidence. Isn’t that the objection?

The task becomes dealing with the nature of inspiration and the various claims. I think a strong case can be made for your point about provisional beliefs. Since it is undeniable that the many people who believe in inspiration don’t agree the conclusion is that no matter what inspiration may be, it is filtered through mans own preconceptions and experiences. If that is so very obvious then people must be willing to at least consider the possibility that their idea of God’s will must be just that. “Their idea” It’s fine for people to follow their idea but you must take personal responsibility for how those choices affect others.

I doubt that a fundamentalist would have a problem with taking responsibility. I suspect that many of them would have these beliefs anyhow, and find the Bible very supportive. Indeed, they may ask you if you are willing to take responsibility for going against God’s word.

That’s likely. Still I think it’s important to constantly remind them that when they say “according to the word of God” they are really saying “according to my interpretation of the word of God” It’s odd for me to observe the sometimes desperate need to be “right” and “sure”

I bet they’d say that you need to hand over your heart to god, and many of them have gotten themselves into states where they feel that God’s will has filled them, and told them that their course is correct.

I’ve encountered exactly that. I’ve heard “When I read the Bible I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit and that convinced of it’s divine source” Having had similar experiences myself I believe I can address that. I think those who share some beliefs and experiences stand a better chance of making some progress.

Communism had its own set of absolute rules, which trumped ethics for them. I’m not claiming that anyone can plunk down the perfect set of ethical rules, but purely secular ones contain the chance that they are wrong, and non-absolute ethics are safer than absolute ethics.

I agree. Even if ethics are based on religion the individuals should realize that spiritual growth is an ongoing process and there’s much we don’t know. Even Paul acknowledged this.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
If fundies believed, or acted as if they had belief without evidence, we’d have a better world. But they go beyond belief into claims of truth - at least until you manage to corner one into admitting something is faith based.

As an example, look at kanicbird’s debating style.
[/QUOTE]

I have. It’s painful.

Not if he’s willing to give it up after getting evidence to the contrary.

Sure, and the process of having a hard atheist admit it’s only opinion can be just as much of a struggle. We’ve seen this here on the board. I’ll admit that those who have that desperate need to be “absolutely sure” are nigh impossible to sway.

And when has this stopped someone from refusing to recant a belief, on the good side, to blowing up an abortion clinic, on the bad side? Maybe they think suffering is worth the eternal reward.

Yep. I watched them embrace martyrdom when they imagined an attack on Christianity. I think it will take generations for beliefs to change. In the meantime the question is what’s the best way to encourage progress.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
How different is it? As a musician I know the feeling. At times rather than feeling “I created this” it feels as though “I was allowed to see it” or “I touched the source of all creativity”
[/QUOTE]
Have you ever had a thought upon waking from sleep that seemed earthshaking in its truth and implications for humanity? Did you ever write it down at the time? Sometimes its fun to do so, and to go back and read what pure nonsense such thoughts often are.

My point is that the “feeling” that something is particularly inspired is not especially reliable. As a musician (of only the most limited sense), I know that there were times that I really came up with something cool, and it felt really good. There were other times that I came up with something really cool, and it felt good, and then either I or someone else realized, “Hey, that sounds exactly like such and such.” Or as Chrissy Hynde once noted, the neat melodic hook she used in “Don’t Get Me Wrong” was simply the British Airways “ding” that she heard innumerable times and internalized.

Furthermore, I’m not sure it feels all that different to find the crucial piece of a jigsaw puzzle or answer to a crossword puzzle, a clever solution to a difficult home repair job, an awesome explanation to a theoretical problem in child psychopathology, a moving melody or piece of poetry that gets you laid… In my opinion, the feelings there differ by degree, but not in substance. Why presume that they are supernatural in origin, or that some are supernatural and some are not? Or, alternatively, what is it about regular old human capacities that suggests that they cannot be the source of such experiences?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Have you ever had a thought upon waking from sleep that seemed earthshaking in its truth and implications for humanity? Did you ever write it down at the time? Sometimes its fun to do so, and to go back and read what pure nonsense such thoughts often are.

My point is that the “feeling” that something is particularly inspired is not especially reliable. As a musician (of only the most limited sense), I know that there were times that I really came up with something cool, and it felt really good. There were other times that I came up with something really cool, and it felt good, and then either I or someone else realized, “Hey, that sounds exactly like such and such.” Or as Chrissy Hynde once noted, the neat melodic hook she used in “Don’t Get Me Wrong” was simply the British Airways “ding” that she heard innumerable times and internalized.

Furthermore, I’m not sure it feels all that different to find the crucial piece of a jigsaw puzzle or answer to a crossword puzzle, a clever solution to a difficult home repair job, an awesome explanation to a theoretical problem in child psychopathology, a moving melody or piece of poetry that gets you laid… In my opinion, the feelings there differ by degree, but not in substance. Why presume that they are supernatural in origin, or that some are supernatural and some are not? Or, alternatively, what is it about regular old human capacities that suggests that they cannot be the source of such experiences?
[/QUOTE]

I remember Neal Simon talking about the sense of his muse being so strong that it felt as if he wasn’t writing the character but merely taking dictation. He mocked typing and turned his head and said “Oh that’s good, what happens next?”

I don’t discount that what you say is correct. I want to caution all the people who are so eager to say, “God placed a burden on my heart to come and talk to you” rather than " I have been thinking about you and decided I’d better say …"

I don’t think it’s relegating anything to the supernatural to note the feeling of inspiration and to wonder about it’s source and the nature of our consciousness. If we use some symbol or icon to represent that inspiration when referring to it, no harm done , until someone starts to worship that symbol {and someone will} as if it is the point rather than just a representation of an unsolved mystery.

[cosmosdan]

I was just reading a Q and A from John Shelby Spong in which someone asked him about Dawkins and Harris and their brand of atheism. I found myself nodding my head as I read his answer.
it was a newsletter Email so I don’t have a link
the highlights IMHO

If my only choice was to be a Christian like the Falwells or the Robertsons, I would find atheism a compelling alternative. I believe that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are expressing exactly that.

There is much irrationality in our God thinking and Dawkins loves to point it out. Does that mean that there is no reality in the human search for God? I do not think so.

Does it mean that human definitions of God are always doomed to die? Because they are human creation I am convinced that they will. The God Richard Dawkins rejects is the one I also reject. What is in doubt is whether the God to whom I am drawn is real, whether the human yeaning for the ‘Transcendent,’ the ‘Other’ is real and whether Richard Dawkins’ search for truth and my search for God are in fact the same search, but by different names.

regarding Harris

He sees no alternative to those abuses than to attack and rid the world of Christianity. I think a better alternative is to attack and to rid the world of that abusive Christianity, which suggests that ultimate truth has been captured in creedal forms, that God is an angry parent figure in the sky who wants to punish us but relents and punishes the Divine Son instead, and that followers of Jesus have the right to hate anyone who disagrees with them. I have no need or respect for such a religious system or for that abusive deity.

just a point of interest. I hope I haven’t posted too much.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I remember Neal Simon talking about the sense of his muse being so strong that it felt as if he wasn’t writing the character but merely taking dictation. He mocked typing and turned his head and said “Oh that’s good, what happens next?”

I don’t think it’s relegating anything to the supernatural to note the feeling of inspiration and to wonder about it’s source and the nature of our consciousness. If we use some symbol or icon to represent that inspiration when referring to it, no harm done , until someone starts to worship that symbol {and someone will} as if it is the point rather than just a representation of an unsolved mystery.
[/QUOTE]

There is a lot going on in our brains beyond our conscious mind. My subconscious gives me answers all the time, sometimes on command. I suppose it is not surprising that someone brought up to believe that God can speak to him associates this with God, though it can be purely internal.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I was just reading a Q and A from John Shelby Spong in which someone asked him about Dawkins and Harris and their brand of atheism. I found myself nodding my head as I read his answer.
it was a newsletter Email so I don’t have a link
the highlights IMHO

[/QUOTE]

What do you suppose he means by “reality in our search for god?” Our hunt for the Snark is quite real, and it might take us to wonderful places. That does not mean the Snark exists.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I was just reading a Q and A from John Shelby Spong in which someone asked him about Dawkins and Harris and their brand of atheism. I found myself nodding my head as I read his answer.

If my only choice was to be a Christian like the Falwells or the Robertsons, I would find atheism a compelling alternative. I believe that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are expressing exactly that.

[/quote]
Again, I only comment as one who is in the midst of reading his first Dawkins book. However, I think that Spong’s take on it, as represented in what you posted, is quite wrong, and seems like an attempt to minimize many of Dawkins’ key points. I would speculate that the intention was to allow more liberal regious types (as opposed to fundamentalists, perhaps) to feel more comfortable that the stunning critique of religion from people like Dawkins doesn’t really apply to them.

He addresses this in The God Delusion to some degree in a chapter called “What’s wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?” He later equates religion with the “mother of all burkas” - a needlessly restrictive article that limits our ability to perceive the world around us.

This echoes feelings I’ve had since adolescence. Essentially, the world, and human beings, seem to me like marvelous and mysterious things that I want to understand better. It isn’t satisfying to me to attribute the marvelous to some supernatural power - it minimizes the greatness of what we are and what we have in front of us, and allows us to wash our hands of trying to make better sense of it. Why should we bother figuring stuff out if it’s all someone else’s work and we’ll get all the answers when we shuffle off this mortal coil?

[Cuckoorex]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
What do you suppose he means by “reality in our search for god?” Our hunt for the Snark is quite real, and it might take us to wonderful places. That does not mean the Snark exists.
[/QUOTE]

Likewise, our neuropsychological experience of God or religious transport can be very real without any objective reality outside of our own minds producing such feelings.

Is it vital that the object of faith be real independent from our experience or thoughts? Or is truly only the journey that is of any value?

[David_Simmons]

[QUOTE=Cuckoorex]
Likewise, our neuropsychological experience of God or religious transport can be very real without any objective reality outside of our own minds producing such feelings.

Is it vital that the object of faith be real independent from our experience or thoughts? Or is truly only the journey that is of any value?
[/QUOTE]
if you believe in and act upon “things” that exist only in your mind, how do you know when to stop and draw a line? What I mean is, it seems to me that habitual belief that our mental images are something that should affect how we live can be hazardous. There is no limit to what our mind can dream up, such as that the neighbor is Satan’s tool and should be disposed of.

Science has made a lot of advancement by starting from someone’s seemingly off-the-wall idea. However, the test is always, Does it conform to objective reality? For example can everyone get the same results when the idea is tried out in practice?

Mental speculation and daydreams are great, but I don’t see them as a good guide for action without first testing them against the world outside ourselves.

[Apos]

I’d definitely like to see a discussion of this issue between Harris and Spong, who I think are both great thinkers with some very well-thought out points.

[David_Simmons]

[QUOTE=Apos]
I’d definitely like to see a discussion of this issue between Harris and Spong, who I think are both great thinkers with some very well-thought out points.
[/QUOTE]
Since it is quite unlikely they wil show up, what’s your view?

[Apos]

Um, what? Did you read the thread? I’ve been giving my view. I’m just responding to cosmo’s post with Spong addressing Harris and noting I’d like to see Harris’ rejoinder and then so and on and so on.

[David_Simmons]

[QUOTE=Apos]
Um, what? Did you read the thread? I’ve been giving my view. I’m just responding to cosmo’s post with Spong addressing Harris and noting I’d like to see Harris’ rejoinder and then so and on and so on.
[/QUOTE]
Oh. I thought your post referred only to the question

Is it vital that the object of faith be real independent from our experience or thoughts?

Sorry.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
What do you suppose he means by “reality in our search for god?” Our hunt for the Snark is quite real, and it might take us to wonderful places. That does not mean the Snark exists.
[/QUOTE]

I think he explains that somewhat in the other quote.

whether the human yeaning for the ‘Transcendent,’ the ‘Other’ is real and whether Richard Dawkins’ search for truth and my search for God are in fact the same search, but by different names.

IMO the spiritual quest for truth and the scientists search for truth can only have one and the same outcome. Whatever we learn about the nature of our consciousness and whatever the exploration of quantum physics may lead to may help explain what he refers to as the “Other”

[David_Simmons]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
IMO the spiritual quest for truth and the scientists search for truth can only have one and the same outcome. Whatever we learn about the nature of our consciousness and whatever the exploration of quantum physics may lead to may help explain what he refers to as the “Other”
[/QUOTE]
Does the underlined part mean that you think the “Other” could be an artifact of our consciousness?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Does the underlined part mean that you think the “Other” could be an artifact of our consciousness?
[/QUOTE]

perhaps

[David_Simmons]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
perhaps
[/QUOTE]
That puts us on the same side of that.