Is Richard Dawkins' Anti-Religion Campaign Dividing Society?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Another God
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Religion
Click For Summary
Richard Dawkins is criticized for his strong stance against religion, with some agreeing with his views on the irrationality of faith while expressing concern about the implications of a world without religious moral frameworks. Discussions highlight the belief that losing faith might lead to moral decline, questioning whether morality can exist independently of religious beliefs. Some participants argue that Dawkins oversimplifies complex issues, such as consciousness and morality, while others defend his approach as necessary for challenging religious indoctrination. The conversation reflects a broader debate on the intersection of science, morality, and belief systems in society. Ultimately, the discourse underscores the contentious nature of discussing religion and morality in a scientific context.
  • #61
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Rade said:
Are you saying the scientific method does not allow one to falsify a null hypothesis ?
I don't see why you would think that.

On a more human note, are you saying you can neither affirm nor deny your existence ?
Nor that.
 
  • #63
selfAdjoint said:
Ah, but philosophical monism IS one of its founding principles. There is, for science, only one source of movement and life in the universe, and that source is the proper study of science. Any concept that can not be consistently introduced without appealing to dualism (or polyism) can not coexist amicably with science.

This is not to say that the source has to be seen as simple or mechanical; but it must be one in its role as cause of all.
Would you care to elaborate? There are at least two points I'd like to hear you say more about:

(1) When I think "science", I think "the process of gaining knowledge via the scientific method". What additional meaning are you ascribing to the term?

(2) Could you spell out how monism applies here? In particular, in what sense science is monistic, while any concept of deity must be pluralistic?
 
  • #64
Perhaps some relevant articles.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html

The New Unbelievers
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061105/13atheism.htm

I think the matter is more the clash of thoughts, beliefs and ideas. Take religion out of the picture, and one will still have conflicts among humans, and just as often, groups of humans, who share similar thoughts, beliefs and ideas.

Then the matter becomes - how to develop rational behavior that is peaceful and productive (i.e. positive) rather than negative (i.e. with attritubes such as aggression, hostility, greed, vanity, . . . ).

As for morality and ethical behavior, that ultimately comes down to one's choice (internal influence or direction - guided by one conscience), even when there is an external influence.

Then there is the matter of the individual vs the community (e.g. clan, tribe, nation, religion, race, . . . . ) How does one choose between conscience vs deferrence to the group thought or belief?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #65
hello to all,

Astronuc, imho, I think that in order to start anything on the proper path, you have to really pay attention to the massive emotions that are part of the equation. Emotions will throw off and derail any rational set of laws, however 'good for mankind' they could be, and that's ashame...
 
  • #66
Hurkyl said:
Rade Quote:
On a more human note, are you saying you can neither affirm nor deny your existence ? Hurkyl Reply : I don't see why you would say that
See your post # 58 where you state as a conclusion of an argument that I have somehow made the error of...forgetting that it is possible neither to affirm nor to deny something. So, clearly you state that it is not possible for you to either affirm or deny anything--which I take to also mean your own existence. Hopefully all is now clear.
 
  • #67
Rade said:
So, clearly you state that it is not possible for you to either affirm or deny anything
How so? :confused:
 
  • #68
I haven't watched his films yet or read his book. The only thing I am familiar with is his notion of memes. After Sept 11 he said:

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"

At first I thought this was sage, but after a while I thought since when has he ever had any respect for religion or thought it was harmless.

So one possible way of reading Dawkins is that he is trying to create nonreligious memes and send them out into the population.

Another God said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
When I was around age 6 a teacher said that a some guy
was turned into a pillar of salt by God. I am now 67 and have taken
religion with a "pinch of salt" since then. Have I missed something?

I am reading Dawkins's book The God Delusion, of course
he is right but I am frustrated by the fact that we are now
in the 21st century and such a book is needed. Perhaps
humans will always have some who believe in a God, my advice
is keep out of high buildings.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Yes, atheists find Dawkin's book very convincing.

Garth
 
  • #71
Garth said:
Yes, atheists find Dawkin's book very convincing.
Of course, one wonders whether that's because Dawkins wrote a convincing book, or because they want to believe in its conclusion.
 
  • #72
I do not "want to believe" anything. Wanting to believe is a religious
non scientific state of mind.


Religion is the early dawn of man's thinking: Bertrand Russell
 
  • #73
Chris Davison said:
Wanting to believe is a religious ... state of mind.
Now why would you believe that?
 
  • #74
Here endeth the lesson Hurky , God simply does not exist
and I am not prepared to go around in circles
with someone who presumably has reached adulthood
and does not realize this.
 
  • #75
Chris Davison said:
Here endeth the lesson Hurky , God simply does not exist
and I am not prepared to go around in circles
with someone who presumably has reached adulthood
and does not realize this.
I don't see what any of this has to do with your assertion that

Wanting to believe is a religious ... state of mind.​

Shall I assume that you are retracting this assertion? Or shall I go with the more likely possibility that you cannot back your statements up with logic, so you resort to red herring and ad hominem instead?
 
  • #76
Chris Davison said:
God simply does not exist
Spoken with the sure conviction of a person of faith.

Garth
 
  • #77
Garth said:
Spoken with the sure conviction of a person of faith.

I assume you meant that as a putdown? :wink:
 
  • #78
Doc Al said:
I assume you meant that as a putdown? :wink:

I think so.

What irritates me is the way some people make dogmatic statements about things that cannot be proven and then claim it is only others that are relying on faith.

When I argue with fundamentalist Christians I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are spiritually blind.

When I argue with some atheists I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are stupid and 'have reached adulthood without realising"God simply does not exist''. '

To explain the anthropic fine tuning of the physical universe that makes ours a fecund universe requires either faith in the existence of some kind of creator or in a multitude of other universes. Both responses requires belief in the existence of entities that cannot be observed by scientific means. I cannot see how one response is derided as 'metaphysical' and the other not.

Garth
 
  • #79
Garth said:
I think so.

What irritates me is the way some people make dogmatic statements about things that cannot be proven and then claim it is only others that are relying on faith.

No, we don't. We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.
 
  • #80
Here endeth the lesson Hurky , God simply does not exist
and I am not prepared to go around in circles
with someone who presumably has reached adulthood
and does not realize this.

Im glad you think that way. Let me put you into the group of religious fanatics who are ultimatelly right, no tolerance of other opinions allowed.

You r replacing one belief for another, applying the same irrational sense to it.

Really, wonder anyone who reached adulthood thinking this way.
 
  • #81
When I argue with fundamentalist Christians I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are spiritually blind.

When I argue with some atheists I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are stupid and 'have reached adulthood without realising"God simply does not exist''. '


Garth

Thank you.
 
  • #82
Garth said:
When I argue with fundamentalist Christians I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are spiritually blind.

When I argue with some atheists I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are stupid and 'have reached adulthood without realising"God simply does not exist''. '
arildno said:
No, we don't. We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.

Thank you for providing such a good example.

Garth
 
  • #83
Again, the same intellectual dishonesty is shown by an apologist of religion:

My example is a PRECISE analogy to the God hypothesis, but apologists, wholly UNWARRANTED, wave it away without argument.
Shame on you.
 
  • #84
My example is a PRECISE analogy to the God hypothesis, but apologists, wholly UNWARRANTED, wave it away without argument.
Shame on you.

If one wants to belief in god or fairy or no god that's his choice. He will find arguments to support his/her choice. If i meet such person i give him my belief if he/she is interested. If mine argument makes sense to them i they will accept it or reject. The same goes the other way.

Thats the end of it. Long gone are the age when we needed spiritual leaders to think for us. (be it atheistic or religious priests)

Each one of us has mind on his/her own. Thats the end of it. Why do 'priests' feel like 'saving' lost souls? If one cannot tolerate another persons's belief, that person has no wisdom!

[do not be mad when if taliban would in the name of them being right start repressing atheism, christianity, any other way of thinking by means of intolerance you call for]

by the way, atheism is a belief just like any other belief. What cannt you understand about it?
 
  • #85
sneez said:
If one cannot tolerate another persons's belief, that person has no wisdom!
Eeh?
Whatever are you talking about?

The fact that each person should be allowed to HOLD any opinions they want, is wholly separate from whether others should be required to RESPECT their beliefs.

In fact, when it comes to private fantasies (like religion), it is intolerant towards others to demand that they should respect your belief as something deep and rational.
This is, however, what religionists, and their apologists demand of others.
 
Last edited:
  • #86
arildno said:
Eeh?
Whatever are you talking about?

The fact that each person should be allowed to HOLD any opinions they want, is wholly separate from whether others should be required to RESPECT their beliefs.

In fact, when it comes to private fantasies (like religion), it is intolerant towards others to demand that they should respect your belief as something deep and rational.
This is, however, what religionists, and their apologists demand of others.

Exactly. And note that religious fantasies have content concerning other people. And sooner or later religious people are going to enforce their fantasies on other people. The current example is the fight to define marriage as "a man and a woman".

To me, enforcing any kind of fantasies on somebody else is comparable to enforcing a masturbation fantasy on someone else. That is, to rape.
 
  • #87
arildno said:
We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.
Are you saying that God does not exist?
 
  • #88
Exactly. And note that religious fantasies have content concerning other people. And sooner or later religious people are going to enforce their fantasies on other people. The current example is the fight to define marriage as "a man and a woman".

To me, enforcing any kind of fantasies on somebody else is comparable to enforcing a masturbation fantasy on someone else. That is, to rape.

Man vs woman marriage issue can be held by atheist as well or budhist or whatever.

Im NOT protecting religions (do not feel like you need to justfy atheism to me). I HATE RELIGION with utmost hatered! I just have enough honesty to admit that my opinions are limited as well as my knowledge to say somebody DO NOT BELIEF in this or that. All i can tell them fault in their reasoning or inconsistencies. Education is best weapon against ignorance.

So whatever religious ppl or their religions demand I am not protecting. I will be the first on the front line to protect freedom of belief! But i hate to see Mr. Dawkings attacking religions on something that he and his followers are guilty of as well!

The fact that one is dogmatically and violently speaking against one belief (to the point of prohibiting it) ! (not against the some of the demands of the institutions of that belief ) is clear proof that atheism as Dawkings conceives it is religion belief replacement.
 
  • #89
We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested,
So the 'existence or non-existence of God or gods is nontestable - so one is left to 'believe God or gods exist' or 'believe God or gods do not exist' - either way, one is left 'believing'. :smile:

I am satisfied with what I know and I know that there are many things I don't know yet - but I enjoy discovering new things - and sharing those discoveries with those who are interested in such things. :smile:

Don't worry - Be Happy!

Also, religion doesn't necessarily imply mythology or belief. It does however involve living life with due deliberation as to the consequences of one's actions. There are many believers who are not religious.
 
  • #90
Hurkyl said:
Are you saying that God does not exist?

Not at all.
The hypothesis "God exists" is as LOGICALLY VALID as "God does not exist", since whatever reality MIGHT be, either one of the hypotheses must be true (neither of the statements can be regarded as self-contradictory).

Similarly, the hypothesis "pink unicorns exists somewhere" is as logically valid as its negation.

However, it does not follow that all logically valid statements are equally rational.

Whereas every illogical statement is irrational, not all logical statements are rational.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Is the Dawkins Documentary Debate getting out of hand?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
  • · Replies 293 ·
10
Replies
293
Views
35K