Well said. Cite? Surely this is not merely a leap of faith on your part.
Whether he starts it or not isn't important. He of all people should be consistently taking the high road. In doing so he can still needle the opposition while coming off as thoughtful, well spoken and intelligent. If the arguments of his opponents are truly as illogical, childish, and useless as he thinks they are; he can only make himself look better by not descending to their level and trading acidic remarks.I was just rambling, I have no cite. It just seems that despite wars largely stemming from territorial interests and competition for resources, they are often dressed up with religious reasoning - giving fighters both a sense of being on their god’s side, and conversely of their opponents being expendable spiritual dead-enders. We’d surely be better off without this primitive illusory divide.
I’m actually in the midst of reading Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and I’m loving it. It’s making me realize that I’ve been afraid to call myself an atheist, so I’ve been generally considering myself an agnostic for a long time. I was raised in a Methodist family with a mother who is very open to skepticism herself, and who was always offended by people who force religion upon others.
Even as a child, I remember questioning a great deal about religion, and particularly why it is that an omnipotent being seemed to have so many of the petty, small, vindictive and hateful attitudes that I work hard as a piddling human to avoid. I enjoyed Dawkins’ description of the god of the old testament as a “psychotic delinquent.”
I’ve enjoyed his questioning of why it is that we, in general, are so deferential to religious people and religious points of view. Religious folks are generally so very sensitive to any questioning of their beliefs that we tend to bite our tongue, mouth some platitudes and keep to ourselves. At the same time, many religious people feel free to equate atheism with murder, satanism, child rape, and so on, and say things like “I don’t care what you believe (in terms of religion) as long as you believe in something.”
The one step I haven’t been in with Dawkins is his regard for the design-based argument against god. That is, design people point to things, such as the eye, as examples in support of an intelligent designer because it seems so improbable to them that they could exist otherwise. Yet, one who could design such a thing must be at least as improbable as that thing. If improbable existence implies design, who designed god? (I could very well not be fully understanding or explaining this argument, which would explain why I don’t find it as compelling as all of his other arguments.) He certainly devastates design arguments in many other ways.
However, he only briefly seem to employ the argument against design that I’ve long thought quite compelling myself. If we look at things like the eye as examples of design because they are so improbably complex and suit us so well, and must therefore be the work of an omnipotent designer, why are they so poorly designed? For example, at least half the time we live in dark. Why does the eye work so poorly in the dark? Why does it only see in the spectrum that it does? Why do the blood vessels of the eye exist in the way of our vision? On other matters, why do our knees only bend one way? Why do we hear in such a limited range? Why do we run so slowly, fly so poorly, swim in so limited a fashion? All of this is to suggest that our design is incredibly imperfect and not ideally suited to enhance our functioning as it could be. I find design to be a very uncompelling argument in favor of an intelligent creator.
All in all, reading Dawkins has so far been very empowering to me, for which I am grateful.
I am an independent believer with a background in Christianity. I welcome any discussion that makes people really look at and question their beliefs. I see it as a positive thing. I have no problem with believers claiming their right to believe as they will but trying to legislate your beliefs upon others deserves to be vigorously challenged.
I’m also a fan of getting the facts into the hands and ears of as many people as possible. I see that as a process that will effect the next generation and those that follow. Providing hard evidence against certain traditions and myths can only help. I’d like to see people focus on the essence of most religions which is IMHO how we morally interact with one another. When someone says “I’m a Christian” or says “I’m an atheist” we still don’t know what kind of person they are. They might be great people who are a boon to those around them or they might be total jackasses. We’ve seen examples of that here on the board.
For me, beginning to have the discussion about beliefs will help bring the focus back to behavior rather than tradition and myth.
That being said, I think we need to find a way to respect an individuals right to believe what they will when those beliefs aren’t hurting anyone. Religious and non religious beliefs are connected to emotion to. It isn’t just about logic and reason for any of us. In our many threads on religion and belief here I’ve seen the most vocal and critical atheists display their own beliefs without evidence all the while claiming their beliefs are based on logic and reason. Let’s encourage the discussion but address the actions.
Hentor the Barbarian the argument against design is discussed quite extensively in his other books, like The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, etc.
Vacillating between pantheism - atheism (soft and hard). I know :D.
Any effort to bring Atheism to the mainstream is ok. And to that end, Richard Dawkins is being successful. More power to him. Being a bit militant goes with the territory considering that there are a lot more militant theists who would want to take him on. Also, it’s only natural that Dawkins will be targetting the sillier elements among theists, because they are the most bothersome. I don’t believe any atheists will have issues with Pantheists mainly because pantheists rarely want to codify their beliefs in law. When you have a substantial portion of the population who want to put into law things that are just based on their beliefs, it’s fair game to question those beliefs.
Atheist here, and rogue child of theists.
I strongly hold that theistic religion has done infinitely more harm than good. I also contend that because of the way the mind functions, in that it must have an answer for any question it poses, the potential for the mind to allow us to consider the non-empirical on par with the empirical is significant, which, in my view, makes the development of religious belief, of some kind, inevitable in humans. Therefore, I believe atheism is the aberrant position as it seems to me that inclination toward theistic belief is the natural state of the human mind.
I believe Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are both a net positive for the advancement of the understanding of atheism. It may seem to some that Dawkins is a little condescending in his approach, and somewhat moreso in his responses to theist’s queries, but I chalk that up to his incredulity and frustration in the apparent ease with which those with whom he debates eagerly defend their abrogation of critical and reasoned thought for constructs with no basis in fact. Sam Harris takes the stronger position, as do I, that theistic religion should not be tolerated, and that doing so weakens the human race and stunts its potential.
I can, and do, easily live in peace with theists, for the most part, although I admit it’s a challenge at times for me to take those who wear their chosen mythology on their sleeves seriously and without discount.
Atheist here.
I’m torn by the phenomenon. On the one hand, I think that getting atheists to be more visible is a positive. I think that encouraging critical thinking (which I know, isn’t necessarily the same thing as atheism) is also a good thing.
On the other hand, I think that Dawkins and co. come off as condescending and off putting. I don’t know if this can be necessarily helped when you are at odds with the majority of the population, but I think that a softer and more charitable approach should have been taken.
Granted if one had been taken I’m not sure it would have gotten as much attention.
In short, I’m torn.
Wow, I did not expect this thread to catch fire like this. But I’m not asking for the merits of atheism but more about Richard Dawkins’ presentation of atheism. So no one finds it a bit uncouth to say “what you believe to be fundamentally true is wrong and bordering on idiocy”?
(I know that’s not what he says but that’s how he comes off, I feel)
Not to say I’m unhappy that he wrote the book, but some atheists are taking it too far. Those discussions have a time and a place and I can see atheists practically foam at the mouth and offering their uninvited opinion when anything regarding Christianity and atheism is mentioned. I am a fan of intelligent discourse as much as anyone but not at the cost of offending people who didn’t even ask for your opinion. So maybe I have more of a problem with his followers than Dawkins himself…
But quite frankly I don’t know how many fundamentalists (the source of the problems, I think we more or less agree) Dawkins is winning over, but this recent of atheism movement seems like a bunch of atheists feeling smug and patting each other on the back while slandering Christians.
I have trouble believing moderate religiosity is a problem if seperation of church and state is maintained and idiots don’t use it as justification for their own hateful behavior and prejudice. I don’t think if religion disappeared off the face of the earth, homophobia and all that stuff will dissipate since I know plenty of homophobes who are not religious in any sense.
I have to get going for now, but I appreciate the replies so keep em coming.
Atheist here. I actually got bored when reading the God Delusion and didn’t finish it, although I’ll pick it back up at some point.
I personally enjoy when Dawkins sounds “hostile” toward religion, because I was raised in strict Catholicism and am hostile towards religion myself. But as mentioned in an earlier post, some of the topics he rants about don’t seem relevant or important enough to include in what is a very important book, IMHO. I think these unnecessary rants take away from what I consider to be the “important” material.
Overall, anyone who actually beleives in Christianity will be too offended by Dawkin’s approach to learn that what he is writing about makes far more logical sense than their beleif system. I personally enjoy his approach, but a Christian will probably just put it down right away.
And there’s the rub . . . I think the subject material is worth of being “hostile” about, and that Dawkin’s approach is appropriate, but I don’t think many Christians will be de-converted by it because I doubt they read more than a few pages.
True, because it is a value judgment. It is better to simply assert that it is, in fact, inaccurate.
I do. At most, a couple of people have said they don’t mind.
Sucks to have the shoe on the other foot. There is nothing inherently “smug” or obnoxious about atheists writing books or explaining their views, although the terms in which Dawkins puts his views out there can strike people that way.
Again, I disagree that there’s any atheist movement. Michael Newdow took a case about the pledge of allegiance to the Supreme Court, and Dawkins has written a few books that have gotten attention. That ain’t exactly a movement, and if you have other reasons behind your statements that there IS such a movement, I’d like to hear them.
I don’t think it’s a problem, and I’m opposed to attempting to convert people anyway. It’s a waste of time and I don’t see how it’s worth the effort. Discouraging extremism, or trying to keep extremism out of the public sphere, is one thing - but trying to get rid of religion is pointless.
I’m not sure what constitutes a movement, but I guess it would be more accurate to say the rise in the number of outspoken atheists. Mere semantics I say…
It seems to me that most complaints I hear about Dawkins and Harris all have a surprising lack of any interest in what they actually say or argue or the reasons they give for why they care.
They are just atheists, who hate religion, or something, and they should stop ranting so much. Snore. Come back when you aren’t pushing a tired old stereotype that people play on thoughtlessly anytime a single skeptical non-believer cries foul about a torrent of claims and ideas that pervade a completely dwarfing array of books, articles, and talk show hosts.
Dawkins has a few pretty good arguments about this very knee jerk reaction in his book actually. Most religions have worked VERY HARD to create a sense of taboo and a special immunity to criticism in Western society (that sense has not, of course, been well respected on the internet, however, which I think is a good thing).
The only people I have ever seen confused by this issue are theists and some overly defensive agnostics. And most of the times, it’s seemed like the theists are DELIBERATELY pushing confusion: trying to insist that all atheists believe a straw man position and trying to assign it to all outspoken nonbelievers by sloppy definition. Atheists have never, that I’ve seen, had much problem defining their terms or keeping straight what’s being talked about, mostly because we tend to be more aware of the tactics of confusion generally employed to smear us.
The last time a “movement” equated to three members took place in the toilet this morning…
I would characterise a movement as having some form of organisation, with perhaps a designated pecking order.
The thing I most agree with Dawkins about is that parents should not be able indoctrinate their children.
Parents should be stopped from forcing non-evidence based positions on their children. This is abuse.
Yes! I’m in the same boat as you; before reading The God Delusion, I was a self-described fence-sitting agnostic. I thought that I was being shrewd, and that theism and atheism were equally fallacious positions to take. Truth be told, I too was afraid of the atheist label. I thought that being an atheist meant that you asserted in all certainty that God did not exist. After reading Dawkins’ book, I realised that I had been wrong about atheism. I realised that even Dawkins himself (who had been presented to me as this zealous figurehead for hard-line atheism) does not totally discount a deity and is more than willing to be convinced if the appropriate evidence were to be presented.
As for Dawkins’ ‘brand’ of atheism, I’m not particularly sure what this brand is supposed to be. Aggressive? Perhaps, although I’d say it was more bold or energetic. He engages in rational discourse, and just sees no reason why religion and religious beliefs should be handled with oven gloves as far as informed criticism is concerned. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s crushing people’s hopes and dreams or calling them idiots. Dawkins may not always be right, and The God Delusion may not be perfect, but overall he is good for atheism, rationalism and intellectual debate in general.
Well there are atheist organizations and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, which definitely has an atheist agenda.