Is Richard Dawkins' Anti-Religion Campaign Dividing Society?

[arildno]

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. .

Of course. As long as it is DISCOVERED, rather than merely purported to exist, which is something quite different.

 

[arildno]

The fact that one is dogmatically and violently speaking against one belief (to the point of prohibiting it) ! .

Who are you talking about?
Surely not Dawkins, nor have anyone here at PF advocated a ban on religion!

Those individuals most typically in favour of banning other thoughts are..the (monotheistically inclined) religious individuals.
(Check out history on that)

 

[sneez]

Who are you talking about?
Surely not Dawkins, nor have anyone here at PF advocated a ban on religion!

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html"

http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html (Crusaide against religion?) what do you call that?

Read dawkins's 'New Atheism'

quote:"Yes, there could be a rational religion," Dennett says. "We could have a rational policy not even to think about certain things." He understands that this would create constant tension between prohibition and curiosity. But the borders of our sacred beliefs could be well guarded simply by acknowledging that it is pragmatic to refuse to change them.
"

Those individuals most typically in favour of banning other thoughts are..the (monotheistically inclined) religious individuals.
(Check out history on that)

Dear, i could shool ppl in religious oppressions, irrationalities. Thats why i recognize one when i see one. And new atheism is religion of hate and violence. Irrational in its demans and higly non-tolerant. All that you so much complain about.

And like i said, I am not protecting religion or ahteism. I am protecting the freedom to belief in whatever you want to as long as you let other do so as well. However, when some belief comes, even when some contemporary respected ppl, that is irrationaly absolutistic i speak against.

If this thread was about christian fanatics i would be here speaking of crimes they commit. But this thread is about Dawking and his new religion, which HE calls it!

 

[arildno]

Well, I've read the article. I didn't see anyone of the New Atheists, including Dawkins advocate a ban on religion.
The closest thing was this:

How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?" Dawkins asks. "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children?

This is a very important question Dawkins raises.
Why, indeed, do we have to accept parents as competent care takers who frighten small children with tales of eternal torture if, for example, you prefer to have sexual relations with someone of your own sex?

We are EMBARASSED and ASHAMED today that a staple ingredient of earlier times' child raising was physical "correction".

The mental hells conjured in quite a few children due to their parents' religious ravings is not something we "have to" accept, because it is in accordance with the "sincere and deep" religious beliefs of the parents.

While the parents should perfectly well be allowed to HOLD their opinions, it by no means follows that we must accept that they inflict damage on OTHER INDIVIDUALS (like their own children).



Furthermore, the article writer is in evident confusion:
He is so accustomed to the idea that we MUST show respect for other persons' religious beliefs, that he regards the New Atheists denial of the existence of such a duty as the result of unwarranted scorn.


However, NO private fantasy concerning what exists in the world or not, (whether religious or not) can lay any comparable claim on others' respect for it as, say, science can.
For example, I have the private belief that everything in the world is fundamentally discrete, and furthermore, that this in the last analysis may prove that continuous modelling of the world (say, by diff.eqs) is unsuitable (a difference equations approach might prove better).
In particular, I think problems concerning, for example, convergence of solutions and boundedness of them will crop up in any continuous modelling scheme.

Now, this is a PRIVATE fantasy I firmly believe in, and it is a FANTASY, because I really don't have any evidence to speak of to bolster it up.
Do I for that reason get mightily offended if others simply dismiss my idea as silly?
No, I don't! Why should I?
It is perfectly within their RIGHTS to dismiss EVERY claim about the world that has wholly insufficient evidence behind it.

That is, I do not REQUIRE that others respect my belief, because that, in my opinion would be an infringement of their rights as sovereign intellectual beings.

However, it is precisely this REQUIREMENT OF RESPECT for their religious beliefs that religionists, and their defenders, perennially put forth, and to which the article writer has submitted himself.

 

[ModernBaroque]

The most annoying thing about some atheists is not their atheism but their inconsistency.

While the parents should perfectly well be allowed to HOLD their opinions, it by no means follows that we must accept that they inflict damage on OTHER INDIVIDUALS (like their own children).

You are basically saying parents don't have a right to educate their children. This is absurd. If people don't have a right to teach kids about what they believe, then they don't have a right to teach them about things like honesty or patriotism.

NO private fantasy concerning what exists in the world or not, (whether religious or not) can lay any comparable claim on others' respect for it as, say, science can.

Nobody is asking that religion be respected. For the most part, religious people feel little respect for different religions, or even different denominations of their own religion. This has nothing to do with respecting ideas, and everything to do with respecting people.

Claiming that people believe in religion because they are intellectually inferior is not showing lack of respect for the religion, it's showing lack of respect for people. That is not nice as your mother should have taught you.

For example, I have the private belief that everything in the world is fundamentally discrete, and furthermore, that this in the last analysis may prove that continuous modelling of the world (say, by diff.eqs) is unsuitable (a difference equations approach might prove better).
In particular, I think problems concerning, for example, convergence of solutions and boundedness of them will crop up in any continuous modelling scheme.

Now, this is a PRIVATE fantasy I firmly believe in, and it is a FANTASY, because I really don't have any evidence to speak of to bolster it up.

First you present some evidence or your "private fantasy", then you claim there's no evidence for it?

If, on the other hand, there really is no evidence for your idea, then it would be stupid of you to believe it. Isn't that exactly what you are claiming about religiuos people?

Do I for that reason get mightily offended if others simply dismiss my idea as silly?
No, I don't! Why should I?
It is perfectly within their RIGHTS to dismiss EVERY claim about the world that has wholly insufficient evidence behind it.

People don't get offended by atheism, you're getting it all wrong. Atheists have always existed and always will. People do get offended for being labeled idiots.

If I tell you you are dim-witted for believing "everything in the world is fundamentally discrete", would not that be offensive?

However, it is precisely this REQUIREMENT OF RESPECT for their religious beliefs that religionists, and their defenders, perennially put forth, and to which the article writer has submitted himself.

You can dismiss an idea as ridiculous without insulting the people who profess it - all it takes is civility, something Dawkins and his followers do not seem to have.

 

[Evo]

You are basically saying parents don't have a right to educate their children. This is absurd. If people don't have a right to teach kids about what they believe, then they don't have a right to teach them about things like honesty or patriotism.

You are incorrect, the quote specifically states "opinions". Religious beliefs are merely opinions. It has nothing to do with educating them about "real, factual" information. You should not put words into people's mouths.

is asking that religion be respected. For the most part, religious people feel little respect for different religions, or even different denominations of their own religion. This has nothing to do with respecting ideas, and everything to do with respecting people.

Claiming that people believe in religion because they are intellectually inferior is not showing lack of respect for the religion, it's showing lack of respect for people. That is not nice as your mother should have taught you.

What do your comments have to do with Arildno's post?

And you continue to misread what he wrote.

If you're going to quote someone's words then your following response needs to address what they wrote.

 

[Hurkyl]

Not at all.

*phew* I was worried that you were making that mistake.

We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing

Would you agree that someone who has seen what appears to be evidence of "this God thing" would be scientifically compelled to believe in it? At the very least, to have more confidence in God's existence than the agnostic stance would have?


And on a completely different note...

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.

Where do you get off saying that Science is the only source of truth?

First off, what evidence is there that Science is good for anything at all? (Empirical evidence. Ponder that a moment)

Secondly, why should anyone believe that there can be no other source of truth?

Obviously your core beliefs include that Science is the only source of truth, and that's fine for justifying things to yourself. But it gives you no logical footing whatsoever when debating with company that doesn't share that core belief. And thus I reject this argument; it can only be valid when you are, pardon the phrase, preaching to the choir.

 

[Another God]

First off, what evidence is there that Science is good for anything at all? (Empirical evidence. Ponder that a moment)

Aeroplanes, space ships, penecilin, heart transplantation, microwaves, refrigeration, super-computers, electricity, year round climate control, structural integrity in high rises...

need I continue?

 

[Hurkyl]

Aeroplanes, space ships, penecilin, heart transplantation, microwaves, refrigeration, super-computers, electricity, year round climate control, structural integrity in high rises...

need I continue?

Ah, empirical evidence. Ponder that a moment.

 

[Another God]

through empirical studies science has provided information which has benn applied to create empirical solutions to empirical problems allowing for empirical improvements in longevity, health, wellbeing etc.

Better or worse can't be empirical, but stats can. Stats show science improves stuff.

 

[sneez]

That is, I do not REQUIRE that others respect my belief, because that, in my opinion would be an infringement of their rights as sovereign intellectual beings.

However, it is precisely this REQUIREMENT OF RESPECT for their religious beliefs that religionists, and their defenders, perennially put forth, and to which the article writer has submitted himself.

You do not require respect for your belief? Do you realize that your belief(s) is what you are? All you know is a belief!

how can you let such thing to come out of your brain out loud, that you call for NOT RESPECT of another person's belief?

Pls, next time you have conversation with someone in work place of any other place tell the person straight in the eye "I do not respect your belief"! (and i mean when you discuss nature of matter, or science, or biology, or what ever that person is expressin his opinion-belief about, not just religion)
See, how long your conversation will hold. NExt, imagine that this pathetic belief is of everyone around you, hmmm, what a place to live in.

Surelly, you seem to be smart, able to rationalize your fallacies, but with no wisdom ( on this issue). To win an argument does not make you right. Stop trying to win an argument and let concentrate on the meaning of what you're (Dawking) talking about.

Soverentity of a being is not diminished by respect of something. If i do not need to respect your belief, on the same note i do not have to respect your race, your color...you get the idea.

 

[arildno]

You are making the same fallacy as muslim fanatics when you say that your beliefs are what you are. They're not.
For example, I have a body, and have wishes that no one is to intrude upon my body space unless I want it myself.
This is not a "belief", and if you haven't any respect for my set of beliefs (and being entitled to that), it does not follow that you are entitled to intrude upon my body space.

The muslim fanatic, however, thinks that he is entitled to murder,maim and burn any bodies belonging to persons disrespectful of his beliefs.

 

[sneez]

You are making the same fallacy as muslim fanatics when you say that your beliefs are what you are. They're not.
For example, I have a body, and have wishes that no one is to intrude upon my body space unless I want it myself.

arildno, All you know, all you say, all your opinions are your beliefs. Do you agree. Therefore, i say you are your belief. You are what you think. What you think is your belief. What you just wrote is your belief. You cannot get out of it.

The moment you take respect for a belief out of the equation tell me what is left? What is there when respect is gone?

and please let me know your opinion on:]
Soverentity of a being is not diminished by respect of something. If i do not need to respect your belief, on the same note i do not have to respect your race, your color, sex, rights,property...you get the idea.

You see, mistake is made by dawkin the not agreeing is the same is not respecting. Humanity was trying to learn for centuries to respect another belief through religious wars and etc.(well almost when ppl had it, and even put it in constitution) Now, some person tries to say we don't need it as long as we BELIEF in no god. (hope you see the keyword).

Do you see that it has been long recognized by ppl that to respect another's belief is to respect the being?
Can you respect me if you do not respect my belief? (And i do not mean disagree with an belief, i mean to not respect an belief. That is a world of difference).

 

[Doc Al]

You seem to conflate "respect" for a person--extending common courtesy towards fellow human beings--with respect for a person's beliefs. Sorry, but just calling a thought or idea a "belief" does not make it any more rational, evidence-supported, or worthy of respect. Propositions about the world must earn respect. This doesn't mean you must be nasty to people, but it surely doesn't mean that any crackpot, off-the-wall, nutball idea should get "respect" just because someone "believes" it. Enough is enough. One of Dawkin's (and Sam Harris's) points is that religious ideas are statements about the world and should be subject to the same critical scrutiny as any other proposed idea.

 

[selfAdjoint]

You do not require respect for your belief? Do you realize that your belief(s) is what you are? All you know is a belief!

how can you let such thing to come out of your brain out loud, that you call for NOT RESPECT of another person's belief?

Pls, next time you have conversation with someone in work place of any other place tell the person straight in the eye "I do not respect your belief"! (and i mean when you discuss nature of matter, or science, or biology, or what ever that person is expressin his opinion-belief about, not just religion)
See, how long your conversation will hold. NExt, imagine that this pathetic belief is of everyone around you, hmmm, what a place to live in.

Surelly, you seem to be smart, able to rationalize your fallacies, but with no wisdom ( on this issue). To win an argument does not make you right. Stop trying to win an argument and let concentrate on the meaning of what you're (Dawking) talking about.

Soverentity of a being is not diminished by respect of something. If i do not need to respect your belief, on the same note i do not have to respect your race, your color...you get the idea.

But this is a two-way street. The Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago used to take a bull horn (perhaps he still does) and stand across he street from an abortion clinic and thunder at the women who might be going in. The only reason he was across the street was that the law made him be. His coreligionists (my ex-coreligionists) used to impinge on these women waving rubber fetuses.

Do I have to respect his belief, their beliefs? If they had regularly respected the beliefs of the women, things like Dawkinism would never arise.

 

[ModernBaroque]

One of Dawkin's (and Sam Harris's) points is that religious ideas are statements about the world and should be subject to the same critical scrutiny as any other proposed idea.

That is not what Dawkins is saying. Religious ideas are statements about the world, but they have been subject to critical scrutiny by billions of people through thousands of years. The historical record as well as the present situation clearly show that the majority of people have validated and accepted the claims of religion.

What Dawkins is really saying is that religious ideas are statements about the world, and as such should be subject to critical scrutiny by people who scrutinize things from the premise that religion is false. In other words, as a philosopher Dawkins is not particularly bright.

 

[arildno]

. Religious ideas are statements about the world, but they have been subject to critical scrutiny by billions of people through thousands of years. The historical record as well as the present situation clearly show that the majority of people have validated and accepted the claims of religion.

This is sheer insanity. You have just shown yourself to be incapable of rational discourse.

 

[siddharth]

Religious ideas are statements about the world, but they have been subject to critical scrutiny by billions of people through thousands of years. The historical record as well as the present situation clearly show that the majority of people have validated and accepted the claims of religion.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html
and a nice http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html

 

[ModernBaroque]

This is sheer insanity. You have just shown yourself to be incapable of rational discourse.

I'm confused. What's wrong with what I said? I think it's a fact that people have scrutinized religion for thousands of years. I do it myself and so does everyone here, it seems. Some reject it, most accept it.

What did I say that prompts the charge of insanity?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

Good, I see you took Philosophy 101 and are already familiar with the jargon. Can you do some thinking now?

I didn't say even say religion is right, I just said its claims are accepted by most people. Do you want to deny that?

I think Dawkins is not particularly bright on the subject of religion, and he provides plenty of evidence for it. For instance, someone quoted him saying that he thought religion was harmless but changed his mind after 9/11. Where is this guy from? Had he never heard of the Spanish Inquisition?

 

[arildno]

arildno, All you know, all you say, all your opinions are your beliefs. Do you agree. Therefore, i say you are your belief. You are what you think. What you think is your belief. What you just wrote is your belief. You cannot get out of it.

The moment you take respect for a belief out of the equation tell me what is left? What is there when respect is gone?

and please let me know your opinion on:]
Soverentity of a being is not diminished by respect of something. If i do not need to respect your belief, on the same note i do not have to respect your race, your color, sex, rights,property...you get the idea.

You see, mistake is made by dawkin the not agreeing is the same is not respecting. Humanity was trying to learn for centuries to respect another belief through religious wars and etc.(well almost when ppl had it, and even put it in constitution) Now, some person tries to say we don't need it as long as we BELIEF in no god. (hope you see the keyword).

Do you see that it has been long recognized by ppl that to respect another's belief is to respect the being?
Can you respect me if you do not respect my belief? (And i do not mean disagree with an belief, i mean to not respect an belief. That is a world of difference).

Doc Al made an excellent post on how you conflate issues.
Wherever have you gotten the strange notion that "statements of the world", "expressions of your mental states", "judgments of what is beautiful", "statements on what makes me happy/unhappy", "definitions&deductions within a logical system" should be lumped together as "belief", and furthermore, that it is meaningful to have a single, unvarying attitude to each of the elements within this sack of yours??

 

[arildno]

Religious ideas are statements about the world, but they have been subject to critical scrutiny by billions of people through thousands of years. The historical record as well as the present situation clearly show that the majority of people have validated and accepted the claims of religion..

I'm confused. What's wrong with what I said? I think it's a fact that people have scrutinized religion for thousands of years. I do it myself and so does everyone here, it seems. Some reject it, most accept it.

What did I say that prompts the charge of insanity?

You have twisted, beyond recognition, the meaning of "critical scrutiny".
That is, you have made up a "private meaning", inaccessible to others and totally at odds with standard usage, and it happens to be highly symptomatic of schizophreniacs, for example, that they develop new and secret meanings to just about every word they utter.

 

[ModernBaroque]

You have twisted, beyond recognition, the meaning of "critical scrutiny".
That is, you have made up a "private meaning", inaccessible to others and totally at odds with standard usage, and it happens to be highly symptomatic of schizophreniacs, for example, that they develop new and secret meanings to just about every word they utter.

So, in other words, you're a troll?

 

[siddharth]

Good, I see you took Philosophy 101 and are already familiar with the jargon. Can you do some thinking now?

I didn't say even say religion is right, I just said its claims are accepted by most people. Do you want to deny that?

My post was in response to

Religious ideas are statements about the world, but they have been subject to critical scrutiny by billions of people through thousands of years. The historical record as well as the present situation clearly show that the majority of people have validated and accepted the claims of religion.

I wanted to point out that the majority of the people "validate" religion like

Sure I believe in God. People have believed in God for thousands of years so it seems clear that God must exist. After all, why else would the belief last so long?

God must exist. After all, I just saw a poll that says 85% of all Americans believe in God.

This thread is rapidly going downhill with all the personal attacks. I wouldn't be surprised if it's locked soon.

 

[arildno]

This thread is rapidly going downhill with all the personal attacks. I wouldn't be surprised if it's locked soon.

Well, anyone who chooses, as ModernBaroque does, to "discuss" things by twisting all words into his own private meanings rather than those of standard usage, shows through that so little respect for others that he ought to be banned.

 

[ModernBaroque]

My post was in response to

I wanted to point out that the majority of the people "validate" religion like

Sure I believe in God. People have believed in God for thousands of years so it seems clear that God must exist. After all, why else would the belief last so long?

In this case you are right, this would definitely be an argument from authority if the poster were arguing for the existence of God. I didn't read the original post, but he seems to be simply saying that he accepts religion on the basis of authority. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with that. If we had to question every single piece of knowledge we are exposed to, we would end up in total skepticism.

I don't know about you, but I don't have a particle accelerator and a telescope array in my backyard. I have to accept modern physics strictly on the basis of my respect for the authority of physicists.

Many people claim to have accepted religion as a result of critical scrutiny. It's their scrutiny and their claim, I have no say on the matter. It just seems irrational to dismiss them out of hand. But the majority of people accept religion on the basis of authority, because they respect the people who teach them about religion: their parents.

This thread is rapidly going downhill with all the personal attacks. I wouldn't be surprised if it's locked soon.

We can still try and rescue it. It's an interesting discussion.

 

[arildno]

That is not what Dawkins is saying. Religious ideas are statements about the world, but they have been subject to critical scrutiny by BILLIONS of people through thousands of years. The historical record as well as the present situation clearly show that the majority of people have validated and accepted the claims of religion..

. But the MAJORITY of people accept religion on the basis of authority, because they respect the people who teach them about religion: their parents.

This is a flat contradiction.

 

[ModernBaroque]

This is a flat contradiction.

It does look like it. My apologies for the sloppy writing. I'd be happy to clarify in case someone cares (I doubt it)

 

[arildno]

But your response to Doc Al was that BILLIONS of humans had performed a critical scrutiny of religion, and that HENCE, Doc Al's premise for what type of beliefs was worty of respect was, in fact, fulfilled in the case of religion.

What is your position now, I wonder?

 

[ModernBaroque]

But your response to Doc Al was that BILLIONS of humans had performed a critical scrutiny of religion, and that HENCE, Doc Al's premise for what type of beliefs was worty of respect was, in fact, fulfilled in the case of religion.

Look, you accuse me of keeping private meanings to concepts, but what exactly do you mean by "respect"? My understanding is that you can respect people, and you do so by acting and talking to them in manners conventionally accepted as respectable. But, ideas? How do you "respect" an idea?

Now because, contrary to what you believe, everyone does speak a private language, I'm forced to guess what each person means by every word they say. I conclude that respect for an idea means considering the possibility that it is a valid idea, an idea worth thinking and talking about. But that notion is so far from my notion of "respect" as to make any argument meaningless.

(I suspect "respect" in the case of ideas should really be replaced with "interesting". Dawkins would make more sense if he said "religion is not an interesting idea" meaning "an idea not worth thinking about". But that would expose the fact that what he is presenting as a rational argument is really no more than his personal opinion)

Why can't we concentrate on the fact that it is disrespectful, in any reasonable sense of the word, to disparage people as intellectually inferior for holding certain beliefs?

What is your position now, I wonder?

My position regarding what?

 

[arildno]

Look, you accuse me of keeping private meanings to concepts, but what exactly do you mean by "respect"? My understanding is that you can respect people, and you do so by acting and talking to them in manners conventionally accepted as respectable.

Fine by me. You use "respect" here in one of its standard meanings, namely restricted to persons.

But, ideas? How do you "respect" an idea?

Well, evidently, if "respect" is restricted to a personal sense, then it is meaningless to "respect" an idea.
However, you can still form judgments as to whether a particular idea is "silly", "well thought out", "rests on evidence or not"

Now because, contrary to what you believe,

What do you know of what I believe?

everyone does speak a private language,

To some measure. That is one of the reasons why it is extremely difficult to build up a science within the humanities; the natural sciences DO have a couple of tools to get around this problem, most importantly experiments and mathematics.
.

Why can't we concentrate on the fact that it is disrespectful, in any reasonable sense of the word, to disparage people as intellectually inferior for holding certain beliefs?

Wherever does it follow that holding ONE silly opinion makes a person silly?
That amounts to saying that because one number is negative, then summing that number with other numbers necessarily gives a negative result?

However, and this is important, negative numbers do "exist" (in maths, at least), and so does silly opinions.
Nor should it be regarded as preposterous to point at some opinion held by a person as being silly.

As for your position on what:
It should be evident:
Have BILLIONS of people performed a CRITICAL SCRUTINY of religion, or not?