Is Richard Dawkins' crusade against religion causing controversy in our society?

[Another God]

I'm posting this in social sciences because it seems like Richard Dawkins is on a crusade against the social aceptance of religion. So this topic is sort of a religion topic, sort of a biology topic, sort of a physics topic, but allin all its about our society and how we accept beliefs.

Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins" " and so I have been watching a few videos on You Tube.

Personally I agree with virtually everything Dawkins says and think his logical consistency and philosophical integrity is unsurpassable. The potential ramifications of this 'crusade' I'm not so sure about though. (though I don't disagree with him doing it at all)

Anyway, watch these films and tell me what you think of what he is saying.

Interview
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY

The root of all evil
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AB2vmj8eyMk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C10sSC2kB3Q&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wr_qZ3P4nl4&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-cZGGD5grkQ&mode=related&search=

And a funny interview with Stephen Colbert
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X1fTkvefu5s

Shane

 

[ray b]

I wish religion was held to the russia ideal
trust BUT VERIFY

and of course no one can verify any belife

 

[arildno]

It is an excellent program, I've seen it before.
In particular, Dawkins' clear analyses and unremitting stance that religion IS irrational, and for the most part, im-MORAL is definitely needed in our world today. It is also about time that a prominent scientist says flat out what religious indoctrination of children is:
It is child abuse.

There are too many cowardly scientists about. Thanks to all non-existing gods that Dawkins is not one of them.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Anyone's reaction to Dawkins' anticrusade seems contingent only on his or her prior conceptions of religion. I mostly agree with him myself, but gee! we don't need another pro and con thread on the rationality of religion. There's one already down on Philosophy; it's called So basically. In my opinion that's where it belongs.

 

[MeJennifer]

In particular, Dawkins' clear analyses and unremitting stance that religion IS irrational, and for the most part, im-MORAL is definitely needed in our world today.

A bit of nonsense if you ask me.
While I do not disagree that the belief in supernatural powers including deities is actually irrational I strongly disagree that we can judge under the pretense of science that something is moral or immoral.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder IMHO.

 

[Another God]

What do you think would happen in a world where Dawkins was essentially successful though? Let's say the worlds major religions were proven to be wrong, what would the religious of the world do?

I'm worried that many of them, without faith in God, would turn immoral. I have heard that argument do many times in anti-evolution threads, Christians saying that without a god there is nothing to stop them from raping etc. It sounds ludicrous to us atheists that anyone would be so morally retarded, but I wonder if religion actually does stiffle the moral development of people by using absolutes and a father like figure version of morality. Suddenlt losing their only concept of morality may indeed leave them not knowing how to behave, and result in a huge increase in criminal behaviour. Serious criminal behaviour.

 

[Doc Al]

While I do not disagree that the belief in supernatural powers including deities is actually irrational I strongly disagree that we can judge under the pretense of science that something is moral or immoral.

Dawkins says no such thing. But he does argue that religion provides no rational basis for morality.

I'm worried that many of them, without faith in God, would turn immoral. I have heard that argument do many times in anti-evolution threads, Christians saying that without a god there is nothing to stop them from raping etc. It sounds ludicrous to us atheists that anyone would be so morally retarded, but I wonder if religion actually does stiffle the moral development of people by using absolutes and a father like figure version of morality. Suddenlt losing their only concept of morality may indeed leave them not knowing how to behave, and result in a huge increase in criminal behaviour. Serious criminal behaviour.

Read the book! Dawkins addresses this issue and much more.

Dawkins kicks ass... with class.

 

[Another God]

LOL, i intend to read the book. I only just found out about it!

 

[MeJennifer]

But he does argue that religion provides no rational basis for morality.

Well I can agree with that.
But why would it need a rational basis anyway?

There is no rational basis for morality IMHO.

 

[PIT2]

I watched one of the videos, and found it somewhat dissappointing. For instance, he rumbled over the issue of consciousness in a matter of seconds. During an interview, some guy claims that "we can be faily sure that consciousness is produced by the brain", after which Dawkins replies: i completely agree. It is no surprise that after making such a huge assumption, that some of the things religion claims (god, survival after death) can be dismissed. I fully understand however that he didnt want to make a long philosophical tv program. He had a purpose with this show, and had to decide what to keep in and what to keep out of it, and at the same time have it remain interesting for viewers. Its probably an eyeopener for religious people who have never really thought about reality very deeply.

Also, in the same video: he suggests our morality evolved because altruistic behaviour has an evolutionary advantage for the individual. What he doesn't mention, is that some bacteria also show signs of altruistic behaviour. This claim thus assaults his own earlier idea (that brain produces consciousness), because if bacteria have a morality, then of course they are also conscious. Instead, the video only showed a group of chimpansees interacting with each other. While this obviously is aimed at convincing religious people that we evolved from common ancestors, i think he should have explored our evolutionary origin a bit further, instead of just the part that serves his goal (attacking religion). Even though he may perhaps do this in his books or elsewhere, the videos could give a wrong impression to its viewers (im not familiar with his books).

I haven't watched the other videos yet.

 

[arildno]

A bit of nonsense if you ask me.

Since I didn't ask you, your comment is just irrelevant and uncalled for.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Since I didn't ask you, your comment is just irrelevant and uncalled for.

Her assertian that there is no rational basis for morality is at least a positive, if slightly OT, contribution to this thread, and it seems to me a legitimate topic for a social sciences forum.. What does Dawkins say about this? Any studies?

 

[arildno]

I was commenting the sub-part of her post that my post was a bit of nonsense, which I didn't ask for, and hence, makes that comment irrelevant by her own words "if you ask me" .

 

[MeJennifer]

I was commenting the sub-part of her post that my post was a bit of nonsense, which I didn't ask for, and hence, makes that comment irrelevant by her own words "if you ask me" .

I was not suggesting that your posting was "a bit of nonsense" but instead that Dawkins' alledged claim was.

I took from your statement that Dawkins in his book has a clear analysis that religion is for the most part immoral.
That I find a bit of nonsense.
Now if he actually claims that in his book is yet another issue, I don't know, since I have not read the book.

 

[arildno]

That immorality bit is a slight interpolation of mine over Dawkins' view.
Feel free to regard that bit of nonsense to come from me.

 

[LJM]

Dawkins misrepresents science as an agenda, remember he is considered as an authority. I think what he's doing is frankly disgusting, and using tired arguments such as 'evidence' to dispel belief are obvious and easy.

If you base your arguments on the current climate of religious ideals, and use science as an anchor, then it's completely flawed. The scientific method is irrelevant to 'belief' and the only notion spurring Dawkins 'is' current climate, which is not a reflection of belief outside of science. It is a daft and misguided premise that is prompting conflict between religious factions and science. Such things do have an effect, and I think it's a gross misrepresentation of science if such publications are presented to the public.

I'm not religious, before anybody asks.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Dawkins misrepresents science as an agenda, remember he is considered as an authority. I think what he's doing is frankly disgusting, and using tired arguments such as 'evidence' to dispel belief are obvious and easy.

If you base your arguments on the current climate of religious ideals, and use science as an anchor, then it's completely flawed. The scientific method is irrelevant to 'belief' and the only notion spurring Dawkins 'is' current climate, which is not a reflection of belief outside of science. It is a daft and misguided premise that is prompting conflict between religious factions and science. Such things do have an effect, and I think it's a gross misrepresentation of science if such publications are presented to the public.

I'm not religious, before anybody asks.

I repeat, the duelling preconceptions have no place in a serious forum. Dawkins means to be provocative and he is. Can't we all just deal with that without consuming Greg's bandwidth to fume in?

 

[MeJennifer]

That immorality bit is a slight interpolation of mine over Dawkins' view.
Feel free to regard that bit of nonsense to come from me.

No problem, I realize that more than occasionally I am not nonsense free either

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Dawkins is an amazing scientist. I am immediately skeptical of any religious individuals ability to think rationally. It's always refreshing to see members of the scientific community reveal religion to be the disorder that it is.

 

[Another God]

What he doesn't mention, is that some bacteria also show signs of altruistic behaviour. This claim thus assaults his own earlier idea (that brain produces consciousness), because if bacteria have a morality, then of course they are also conscious.

That is a wild assumption without basis. 'Moral' behaviour is not based upon consciousness. In fact 90% of the time morality is driven by emotions, which are genetically programmed if-then statements. Bacteria can quite clearly benefit from assisting their nearest rneighbours because usually their nearest neighbour is an offspring with virtually identical DNA. Thus any DNA which programs a phenotypic behaviour which promotes an altruistic behaviour in Bacteria (whatever that is) will inevitably be at the benefit of that one piece of coding...

Consciousness is not required in the least.

The only application for consciousness in morality is in revising our emotional instincts. Evolution has trained us for a pre-industrial world. Has the invention of contraceptives changed the reality of sexual intercourse, and thus our hundred thousand year old instincts are now no longer relevent? ETC Plus the individual application of those instincts may change, so consciousness may allow individual consaiderations...

 

[PIT2]

'Moral' behaviour is not based upon consciousness. In fact 90% of the time morality is driven by emotions, which are genetically programmed if-then statements.

Since when are emotions not experienced?

Bacteria can quite clearly benefit from assisting their nearest rneighbours because usually their nearest neighbour is an offspring with virtually identical DNA. Thus any DNA which programs a phenotypic behaviour which promotes an altruistic behaviour in Bacteria (whatever that is) will inevitably be at the benefit of that one piece of coding...

I merely pointed out the conflict between some of Dawkins speculations. If bacteria act altruisticly, and if they are not conscious, then obviously altruistic behaviour can exist without consciousness. However, if Dawkins wants to believe that morality is a product of evolution because altruistic behaviour is beneficial, then he should also explore the roots of altruistic behaviour.

Consciousness is not required in the least.

The idea that someone can have morals without any experience, is a purely speculative concept. Look at what happens in sociopaths.

Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, sociopaths cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath

 

[Another God]

Since when are emotions not experienced?

Its not an exclusivity. To say experience is not required does not mean that morals cannot be experienced. It is simply true that experience is not 'required' for 'moral' behaviour.

Afterall, a pacemaker can save a life without requesting any recompense. Isn't that moral behaviour? I guarantee the pacemaker doesn't experience the morality of its actions though...

I merely pointed out the conflict between some of Dawkins speculations. If bacteria act altruisticly, and if they are not conscious, then obviously altruistic behaviour can exist without morality. However, if Dawkins wants to believe that morality is a product of evolution because altruistic behaviour is beneficial, then he should also explore the roots of altruistic behaviour.

Altruism is entwined with morality in a way that I can't see how they can be seperated. Morality does not require conscious decision, it simply requires doing 'the right thing'. The right thing can only ever be determined subjectively, and that subjective determination may/may not come from the acting object.

The idea that someone can have morals without any experience, is a purely speculative concept. Look at what happens in sociopaths.

I think we need to establish what "morals" actually means before we bother discussing whether it can exist without existing.

For instance, talking about 'someone having morals' begs the question, because you have already assumed a subjective consciousness into the equation (someone needs to exist in order for them to have morals). So of course there must be experience in order for 'someone to have morals'.

However, for some action to be moral...well, this is actually tricky. Morality is entirely subjectively determined. There is nothing objective about "good and bad" "right and wrong". So there must be experience in order for the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action to be assumed. However, that does not mean that those actions cannot be performed by any possible number of unthinking automaton.

In other words, conscious thought is not required for moral action. It is only required for the moral judgement. A judgement, btw, which is entirely subjective and meaningless in reality.

 

[PIT2]

It is simply true that experience is not 'required' for 'moral' behaviour.

This is just an assumption. Moral behaviour is behaviour that is driven by morals. Obviously morals need subjectivity, u admit so urself, and thus moral behaviour does too.

I think we need to establish what "morals" actually means before we bother discussing whether it can exist without existing.

I think this one will do:
"Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong"

However, for some action to be moral...well, this is actually tricky. Morality is entirely subjectively determined. There is nothing objective about "good and bad" "right and wrong". So there must be experience in order for the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action to be assumed. However, that does not mean that those actions cannot be performed by any possible number of unthinking automaton.

No it doesn't rule out unconscious automatons acting like that. However, there is no evidence that this is the case. We can only go with what we observe in humans, and we observe that our moral actions are driven by our experiences. Its entirely possible that some day someone will built Data from Star Trek and an altruistic android society will arise, but so far this is science fiction.

And suppose it is possible that altruistic behaviour arose without morals, then this takes away the evolutionary function of morals which Dawkins claims they have. Its like saying an organism only needs his eyes, and not his vision, to react to the environment. This takes away the evolutionary function of vision. Similarly, if we only need behaviour for altruism, and not morals, then this takes away the evolutionary function of morals.

...conscious thought is not required for moral action. It is only required for the moral judgement. A judgement, btw, which is entirely subjective and meaningless in reality.

Subjective judgements are not meaningless in reality. Look at the world around u, it has transformed the planet and created the very computer u are typing on.

 

[Another God]

This is such an extensive topic that I don't think I will be able to reply adequately...

This is just an assumption. Moral behaviour is behaviour that is driven by morals. Obviously morals need subjectivity, u admit so urself, and thus moral behaviour does too.

I think this one will do:
"Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong"

OK then, this is where the problem lies. If you want to define morals that way, then of course it involves consciousness. Once again the assumption of willful (conscious) action is in the definition.

However I have to remind you why we are discussing this, earlier you said:

he suggests our morality evolved because altruistic behaviour has an evolutionary advantage for the individual. What he doesn't mention, is that some bacteria also show signs of altruistic behaviour. This claim thus assaults his own earlier idea (that brain produces consciousness), because if bacteria have a morality, then of course they are also conscious

You have assumed altruistic behaviour = morality, and that morality is defined by its conscious motivations. Altruistuc behaviour is any behaviour which benefits another (an action commonly regarded as 'moral'), yet not necessarily involving conscious motivation. Altruism is entirely based on the improvement of others.

So, altruistic behaviour in bacteria is entirely appropriate with views of evolution, and in no way contradictory to bacteria lacking consciousness. Just like a pacemaker altruistically saving someones life without conscious thought, bacteria may altruistically assist their neoghbours without any moral appraisal of their own actions... the altruistic behaviour being no more than a mechanistic program that they are following.


One more thing, consciousness is the brain.. they are inseperable. You can't deny all of the evidence for it, and the complete lack of evidence against it. Dawkins isn't assuming anything in that statement above the usual assumptions of reality.

 

[PIT2]

You have assumed altruistic behaviour = morality, and that morality is defined by its conscious motivations. Altruistuc behaviour is any behaviour which benefits another (an action commonly regarded as 'moral'), yet not necessarily involving conscious motivation. Altruism is entirely based on the improvement of others.

No, i don't assume it, i think (based on what we see happening in humans) that it is a perfectly plausible possibility that morals cause altruistic behaviour. The connection between morals and altruism was made by Richard Dawkins and I of course agree that there is a connection. I do not agree that this connection suddenly stops at some point back in evolution, while altruism continues back further on its own, and that suddenly morals do not only not cause altruism anymore, but that altruism causes morals. Of course Dawkins is allowed to assume that, but basing the origins of morality on such an assumption is no different from basing it on some spiritual entity.

Also like i said earlier, if altruism can exist without morals, then this robs morals of their evolutionary advantageous function.

bacteria may altruistically assist their neoghbours without any moral appraisal of their own actions... the altruistic behaviour being no more than a mechanistic program that they are following.

We can't know. We can only look at ourselves and see that there is a connection between altruism and morals. From this it does not in any way follow that bacteria act altruistically without morals (right/wrong experiences).

One more thing, consciousness is the brain.. they are inseperable.

The brain isn't some magic machine, it consists of the same matter and forces as the rest of the universe. Currently, in science, the brain is used as a box where consciousness has been shoved into and should stay inside. Once we figure out how the box works, then we will also have figured out how consciousness works - or so it is assumed. In reality, all bets are off and the locked-box may be nothing more than contemporary delusion.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Dawkins is an amazing scientist. I am immediately skeptical of any religious individuals ability to think rationally. It's always refreshing to see members of the scientific community reveal religion to be the disorder that it is.

Now that you mention it, I do like to get my head x-rayed to stimulate my brain. No wait, that was Tesla (here, around 8:30). Many accomplished scientists have held irrational beliefs and "suffered" from disorders, especially Obssessive Compulsive Disorder. Mathematician Paul Erdős spoke of

"The Book," an imaginary book in which God had written down the best and most elegant proofs for mathematical theorems. Lecturing in 1985 he said, "You don't have to believe in God, but you should believe in The Book." He himself doubted the existence of God, whom he called the "Supreme Fascist" (SF), but accused the SF of hiding his socks and Hungarian passports, and of keeping the most elegant mathematical proofs to himself. When he saw a particularly beautiful mathematical proof he would exclaim, "This one's from The Book!".

Sounds like you mean something more by the term "religious" than just someone who subscribes to a certain religion.

But maybe I should bring this argument to my teachers, tell them I have "special needs" because I'm a Catholic.:rofl: Though if Mendel could discover the laws of inheritance, though he was so severely handicapped, maybe I'll be able to get through undergraduate classes.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Now that you mention it, I do like to get my head x-rayed to stimulate my brain. No wait, that was Tesla (here, around 8:30). Many accomplished scientists have held irrational beliefs and "suffered" from disorders, especially Obssessive Compulsive Disorder. Mathematician Paul Erdős spoke of

Sounds like you mean something more by the term "religious" than just someone who subscribes to a certain religion.

But maybe I should bring this argument to my teachers, tell them I have "special needs" because I'm a Catholic.:rofl: Though if Mendel could discover the laws of inheritance, though he was so severely handicapped, maybe I'll be able to get through undergraduate classes.

See. My methods do not fail me. Before I saw the end of your response, I thought you were religious. An atheist would have been far less likely to misinterpret my post as you did.

Being skeptical of someone's ability to think rationally is not the same as denying that they may have that ability. Furthermore, having a disorder does not prevent someone from accomplishing great things - but it can make it more difficult or less probable.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

So you're just being offensive in general...

An atheist would have been far less likely to misinterpret my post as you did.

You mean less likely to challenge them.

Do you actually believe subscription to religion is a disorder?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

So you're just being offensive in general...



You mean less likely to challenge them.

Do you actually believe subscription to religion is a disorder?

No. I mean a clear misinterpretation (or twisting around) of what I actually said. Terminology is semantics. Religious belief is the result of mental illness and could be cured through psychiatric methods - if that is what you mean. Religion itself isn't the disorder but a byproduct. I don't know if he was the first to suggest it, but Freud saw that religion was the result of mental disfunction.

I might concede, if convinced that it is possible, that some people are religious for reasons outside mental disfunction, but I would certainly say the vast majority of people are not.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

hehe, I don't think appealing to Freud as an authority will lend any support to your claims.

I concede - you aren't making any real claim, you're just being offensive. Is it the case that most non-religious people you encounter are rational? Seems to me that people in general are most often irrational. Though I guess you could explain even this by saying that most people in the world follow some religion.

Wikipedia

1. Christianity 2.1 billion
2. Islam 1.3 billion
3. Secular/Atheist/Irreligious/Agnostic/Nontheist 1.1 billion
4. Hinduism 900 million
5. Buddhism 708 million (see also Buddhism by country)
6. Chinese folk religion 394 million
7. Primal indigenous ("Pagan") 300 million
8. African traditional and diasporic 100 million
9. Sikhism 23 million
10. Juche 19 million
11. Spiritism 15 million
12. Judaism 14 million
13. Bahá'í Faith 7 million
14. Jainism 4.2 million
15. Shinto 4 million (see below)
16. Cao Dai 4 million
17. Zoroastrianism 2.6 million
18. Tenrikyo 2 million
19. Neo-Paganism 1 million
20. Unitarian Universalism 800,000
21. Rastafari movement 600,000

What of cultural beliefs in general, of which religious belief is just one example? Some say is comparable to religion in this way, as a cultural belief in its own way.

The following statistics show the number of adherents in all known approaches, both religious and irreligious worldwide. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are the largest world religions today. Approximately 75% of humanity follows one of these four religions. Christianity is the religion with the largest number of professed religious adherents, followed by Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism respectively. However, the third-largest "group" of approximately 1 billion people adhere to irreligious approaches which include Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, and Agnosticism.

(my bold)
These are treated as just another human approach to life, just as historically and culturally contexualized as well as human as religous approaches.

And is Dawkins an amazing scientist? He's a great thinker, philosopher even, but is he an amazing scientist? (Honestly asking here)

 

[Another God]

And is Dawkins an amazing scientist? He's a great thinker, philosopher even, but is he an amazing scientist? (Honestly asking here)

I would say that an amazing philosopher is at least half of being an amazing scientist, and certainly the most important because no amount of facts will reveal the answer. It requires a well constructed theory to make sense of the facts so that we may attain understanding.

I have no idea how good Dawkins is at measuring stuff, organising experiments, and no idea if his aseptic technique is above average, but at the end of the day it is the thepries which are remembered, and that is what generally stands the test of time as measuring the 'amazing scientists'.

Darwin wasn't remembered for his tests on the affects of salt water on seedpods, and einstein was certainly not remembered for his experiments on the travel of light.. they are both remembered for their theories of evolution and relativity. As Newton implied with his quote about being able to see far by standing on the shoulders of giants, the great scientist need not do the work..they only need to have access to the facts which can be re-assembled into a logical story of how it might actually work...

And hence Dawkins has the theory of the selfish gene, which I think is a brilliant insight into biology, although it isn't Earth shattering. Time alone will really reveal his 'brilliance' or not.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

His selfish gene theory certainly fits in with physical anthropology's position on culture as an adaptive strategy, though the cultural anthropologists try to keep it from taking over their field.

 

[Another God]

His works have influenced my perspectives on evolution and biology immensely. I do tend to define life (in a strict philosphical sense) as any accurately replicating unit. And yes, this easily extends to all sorts of 'dead' things like computer viruses et al. I just accept that life is just dead things organised in a way which allows for replication...

So the selfish gene makes perfect sense because life is dna replicating. The dna controls everything, and everything is for the DNA!

but anyway, I think I am getting off my own topic.

BTW, Firefly rocks! How can we force them to continue the series, or start making serenity 2 serenity 3 etc?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Yes. Dawkins (outside his religious views) is an amazing scientist. He contributed a lot to his field. I am not an expert when it comes to determining whether someone is an "amazing" scientist - in fact the idea is quite subjective. However, Dawkins' contributions are hard to overlook regardless of belief.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

His works have influenced my perspectives on evolution and biology immensely. I do tend to define life (in a strict philosphical sense) as any accurately replicating unit. And yes, this easily extends to all sorts of 'dead' things like computer viruses et al. I just accept that life is just dead things organised in a way which allows for replication...

So the selfish gene makes perfect sense because life is dna replicating. The dna controls everything, and everything is for the DNA!

but anyway, I think I am getting off my own topic.

BTW, Firefly rocks! How can we force them to continue the series, or start making serenity 2 serenity 3 etc?

Seems ones definition of life could be expanded or contracted depending on precisely what they want to talk about (i.e. defining it in those terms). I'm not particularly interested in non-organic things, so I don't normally consider them as constituting life. In my biology class, we had a checklist of what constituted life, so no on the computer viruses and bubbles:tongue2: Of course, they didn't want to talk about such things so this makes sense.

I think it's too late for Firefly, been over for 2 years now and Joss has moved on to other projects. Serenity was meant to be a wrap-up of what he wasn't allowed to finish in the tv series. He's now working on "Wonder Woman" (2007) and "Goners," I think using James Marsters aka Spike

Whedon has said the new movie will be "very dark" and not unlike the Whedonverse he created in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

yay!