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.
  • #121
arildno said:
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"

Certainly, but before you reach judgement you have to make sure you understand the idea. In the case of religion, you can't dismiss the idea based on what you stereotypes notions of it, both pro and against. There are a lot of religious fools and a lot of people who take their notions of religion from those fools.

How would you feel if someone only visited crackpot sites on the internet and concluded science is nonsense?

What do you know of what I believe?

I actually meant "what you seem to believe". I thought it was rather strange that you accused me of schizophrenic behaviour for assigning private meanings for words. I assumed you were ignorant of the problem of conveying precise meaning through ambiguous words. Apparently I was wrong, but I still don't understand your earlier posts.

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.

I'm not sure I agree here. Most people don't have labs at home and are not particularly proficient in mathematics. Whatever the reason is that most people agree that the Earth orbits the sun, it seems to have little to do with experiments and mathematics, and far more to do with authority. I for one have never owned a telescope and cannot verify that observation for myself.

Wherever does it follow that holding ONE silly opinion makes a person silly?

So how many silly opinions does it take before we can say someone is silly? Three? Fifteen? Come on, don't be silly.

Nor should it be regarded as preposterous to point at some opinion held by a person as being silly.

It can be preposterous if you have one silly person pointing the silliness of another.

Have BILLIONS of people performed a CRITICAL SCRUTINY of religion, or not?

In my calculations, throughout history the number of believers in one form of religion or another is in the range of billions. So let's stop fussing about the number. Now have those people critically scrutinized their religion? That really depends on your own idiosyncratic notion of what constitutes critical scrutiny. And I fear that your notion implies that critical scrutiny of religion necessarily leads to its rejection. In which case you are right, but only in a tautological way.

Now it's quite silly to argue against a tautology. The sensible thing to do is dismiss it as meaningless.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
So, your position seems to be:
Billions of persons have critically scrutinized religion, AND the MAJORITY of persons have accepted religion on basis of authority?
 
  • #123
This thread proves that education is nothing without thinking. To aldrino, you choose to turn your brain on and off accordance with your prconceived ideas and beliefs. You know very well what i made an issue about. You turn off your brain and produce blunt such that I am for all relative belief.

I would recoomend a deep introspection on your internal modes motives why you belief what you belief. Trust not many ppl have done it. You seem one of them.

TO doc, you know very well what i meant. To turn off your brain and be dumb is your choice.

I know I am gonne get all that define this and that, and relativity of this and that. But that's for philosophy, not such a serious issue like this.
 
  • #124
arildno said:
So, your position seems to be:
Billions of persons have critically scrutinized religion, AND the MAJORITY of persons have accepted religion on basis of authority?

Yes. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Let me turn the question around: do you reject religion because you have critically scrutinized it, or because you don't trust the authority of the church?

It's clear to me you can't, or shouldn't, accept an idea if it's not backed by a trustworthy authority. That is what crackpots do. All the same, you can't accept an idea if it doesn't withstand scrutiny. I fail to see why it has to be an either/or issue.
 
  • #125
Hmm..do you have to eat the whole egg to discover whether it is rotten, ModernBaroque?
 
  • #126
ModernBaroque said:
Yes. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Let me turn the question around: do you reject religion because you have critically scrutinized it, or because you don't trust the authority of the church?
You forgot "do you reject religion because it's based on a mythical entity and superstition?"

It's clear to me you can't, or shouldn't, accept an idea if it's not backed by a trustworthy authority.
An authority on something that's basically "make believe"? Don't get me wrong, if you want to believe in supernatural dieties, as long as you don't try to push your belief on me and your belief doesn't affect how I live my life, I don't care. It's when people start trying to push their made up rules on others that it becomes wrong.
 
  • #127
ModernBaroque said:
Yes. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Let me turn the question around: do you reject religion because you have critically scrutinized it
Yes, I haven't seen, felt, smelt or heard God, for example.
Nor has he appeared as a solution of a differential equation.
Among other reasons, that is.
It's clear to me you can't, or shouldn't, accept an idea if it's not backed by a trustworthy authority.
Well, the only trustworthy authority I know of that can help me to decide whether or not accept the statement "I like oranges", happens to be myself.
That is what crackpots do. All the same, you can't accept an idea if it doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Sure you can. Religious people do that all the time. By avoiding to perform a scrutiny.
 
  • #128
arildno, Evo, I'd like to ask a question: how do you manage to discuss religion on this forum, in clear violation of its rules?

If the topic goes back to Dawkins, I will rejoin. But I don't care for this "why I believe/why I'm skeptical" thing, it's soooo boring.
 
  • #129
ModernBaroque said:
arildno, Evo, I'd like to ask a question: how do you manage to discuss religion on this forum, in clear violation of its rules?
It's not, you can't compare one religion to another (stating one religion is better than another) or discuss specific beliefs of religions.
 
Last edited:
  • #130
arildno said:
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.
Why bring up Islam? Violent extremism is not the exclusive property of Islam, or even of religon in general. Given the context, this sounds like you intend a fallacious guilt by association.
 
Last edited:
  • #131
The whole point of fighting for imposing your POV was denounced by Howard Bloom as primitive tribalism.
 
  • #132
Hurkyl said:
Why bring up Islam? Violent extremism is not the exclusive property of Islam, or even of religon in general. Given the context, this sounds like you intend a fallacious guilt by association.

St. Cyrus and his mob of Christian fanatics that killed Hypatia (NOT our PF member!) have been dead for quite a while.
So has the Crusaders.
Jews have stopped persecuting Samaritans.

While there exists some Jewish and Christian fringe groups also today who espouse violent extremism (for example Fred Phelps&co), they do not have the same extent as their Islamic counterparts.

As for non-religious violent extremist group (typically Marxist/Maoist), like Rote Armee Fraktion, Illuminated Path (?, Peruvian group), most of these are also defunct today.
 
  • #133
Personally, I'm going to have to side with Dawkins to at least this extent: I could care less what anyone person believes metaphysically and morally so long as these beliefs do not cause them to behave in a manner that might harm others, but I have never seen any rational justification for holding to the doctrines of any religion I've ever heard of. If you think the preponderance of evidence is in favor of some organizing principle or intelligence being responsible for the arising of our universe, whatever. I don't really see much evidence either way. I don't believe that myself, but there may very well be decent enough reasons to lead a rational person to such a belief from different suppositions about the way the world works than I personally hold to.

There can, however, be no rational basis for believing that the human incarnation of the universe's creator willingly allowed himself to be killed two thousand years ago, his body subsequently rising from the grave three days later before being lifted into the sky. There can be no rational basis for believing that Joe Smith was visited by an angel with golden scrolls and that the size of a man's family will dictate the size of his heaven. There can be no rational basis for holding the belief that how one behaves while alive will determine the circumstances for a future incarnation of the same person into another body. Really, there is no rational reason to believe any culturally specific sacred narrative on its own merits, nor based on the fact that it has traditionally been believed by the propagators of the culture in question. Every single one of these religions answers the questions that empirical, naturalistic investigations cannot answer equally well; whatever reasons one has to choose one religion over the other may or may not be good reasons, but they are certainly not rational. Even amongst the best of religious philosophers, the arguments for Christian particularism are flat-out ridiculous, and I'm not sure the apologists of other religions even bother trying.
 
  • #134
Seems the world's response to rationalist arguments is "So what?"

Good arguments by Dawkins, but what's the point? Is he trying to effect some change or critique religion/culture/humans? Dawkins is bright and contributes a lot to philosophical and scientific thought, but it seems pretty arrogant and ethnocentric to assert superiority of one way of life over another. Criticism is very useful and essential, but he seems to go beyond this.

The physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, writing in Nature, says that although a "fan" of Dawkins, "I wish that Dawkins ... had continued to play to his strengths". Krauss suggests that an unrelenting attack upon people's beliefs might be less productive than "positively demonstrating how the wonders of nature can suggest a world without God that is nevertheless both complete and wonderful." Krauss remarks, "Perhaps there can be no higher praise than to say that I am certain I will remember and borrow many examples from this book in my own future discussions."

ohn Cornwell states in The Sunday Times "there is hardly a serious work of philosophy of religion cited in his extensive bibliography, save for Richard Swinburne – himself an oddity among orthodox theologians". He also complains that: "Dawkins sees no point in discussing the critical borders where religion morphs from benign phenomenon into malefic basket case. This is a pity, since his entire thesis becomes a counsel of despair rather than a quest for solutions."

Alister McGrath, a Christian theologian, describes The God Delusion as "his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available". He suggests that "All ideals – divine, transcendent, human, or invented – are capable of being abused. That’s just the way human nature is. And knowing this, we need to work out what to do about it, rather than lashing out uncritically at religion."
 
Last edited:
  • #135
0TheSwerve0 said:
Seems the world's response to rationalist arguments is "So what?"
Yes, "so what?" is, more or less, the point I'm trying to convey. (though maybe not in the sense you intended) AFAIK, pure rationalism has been rejected for centuries, at least in this particular community if not philosophers in general. So I find it very curious to see scientifically minded people argue so vehemently against religion on the basis that it's not pure reason, since their argument applies equally well to their own beliefs.
 
  • #136
Seems to be a culture war. I notice it's not too often that aboriginal, or even popular beliefs such as Buddhism and Hinduism, are directly implicated or addressed. Seems they aren't culturally salient enough to be used in these arguments.
 
Last edited:
  • #137
Probably because there are no buddhist/aboriginal fundies with their finger over the "NUKE" button :)
 
  • #138
SF said:
Probably because there are no buddhist/aboriginal fundies with their finger over the "NUKE" button :)

There's always some "Other" in one's culture that threatens to one's way of life.
 
  • #139
0TheSwerve0 said:
There's always some "Other" in one's culture that threatens to one's way of life.
I wonder how much of that, 'the fear of the unfamiliar and different', which motivates the behavior of many cultures. Fundamentalists seem unable to comfortably accept a different view of the world.

Take away religion, and one still has xenophobia, or ethnophobia, or some other aversion to those who one sees as being 'different'.

I grew up with people from many different nations, societies, religions, cultures visiting our home. My father, a minister, worked for the World Council of Churches, and he had spent some time traveling through SE Asia. I thought it rather natural to meet people of different backrounds, and I was intrigued by the variety of experiences.

I was troubled when I arrived in the US and found the segregation by race and ethnicity. Of course, I have subsequently learned that such segregation is rather common Australia and England, and many other countries.
 
  • #140
Astronuc said:
I wonder how much of that, 'the fear of the unfamiliar and different', which motivates the behavior of many cultures. Fundamentalists seem unable to comfortably accept a different view of the world.

I've heard fundamentalism described as a restorative movement that claims the authority of tradition while ironically developing out of a “vortex of radical modernization.” Essentially, people overcompensating for change.

Astronuc said:
Take away religion, and one still has xenophobia, or ethnophobia, or some other aversion to those who one sees as being 'different'.

Quite often they create difference just to have an "Other." Makes sense if you think about the fact that the ultimate cause for most violence is competition over resources - land, food, mates. Which is why most violence occurs with people pretty similar to each other occupying the same space/niche (which nowadays isn't just physical space). E.G. The Irish/British fights, Eastern European countries fighting amongst themselves, Europe in general, the castes in India, warring native tribes/chiefdoms...you've got to create a feeling of difference, dehumanization really, to be ok with killing someone.

Astronuc said:
I grew up with people from many different nations, societies, religions, cultures visiting our home. My father, a minister, worked for the World Council of Churches, and he had spent some time traveling through SE Asia. I thought it rather natural to meet people of different backrounds, and I was intrigued by the variety of experiences.

Sounds like a great experience. Do you think the progress we've made in the U.S. is pretty good or just ok?
 
  • #141
Has anyone mentioned the South Park take on Dawkins anticrusade taken to its (il)logical extreme?

Science damn all of you! :smile:
 
  • #142
hehe, no *checking out now*
 
  • #143
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

I don t think science is any more solid than religion. In religion, there is a god, and in physics, there is the laws of nature. They are both logical necessity in there respective believe system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #144
kant said:
I don t think science is any more solid than religion. In religion, there is a god, and in physics, there is the laws of nature. They are both logical necessity in there respective believe system.

One is observable and measurable. The other is a convenient fiction?
 
  • #145
Another God said:
One is observable and measurable. The other is a convenient fiction?
*gasp* You mean, you can use the tenets of science to justify studying science?
 
  • #146
Hurkyl said:
*gasp* You mean, you can use the tenets of science to justify studying science?
Well, if we want progress in the real world, you have to use real world tenets. The metaphysics of science may not be infallible, but at least it has had inumerous practical applications since it was applied, unlike every other metaphysics ever described.

If people want to live in a dream world, fine, that's their problem.
 
  • #147
Another God said:
Well, if we want progress in the real world, you have to use real world tenets. The metaphysics of science may not be infallible, but at least it has had inumerous practical applications since it was applied, unlike every other metaphysics ever described.

If people want to live in a dream world, fine, that's their problem.
*gasp* You did it again! And here I was thinking you couldn't use empiricism to circularly justify science.

What does "dream world" have to do with anything? It doesn't seem to follow from anything you've said today.
 
  • #148
Since when is reality a tenet of science?
Reality would be there even if there was no science to study it.

The "battle" between science and religion is simply a confrontation of which one better describes reality - reality that is independent of religion or science.
 
  • #149
SF i think youve got your a problem in the understanding of the word religion...
thats acceptable considering the fact that some people have completely misguided most in the way they define and understand religion...that what your talking about is not religion its blind faith...

what me to define religion for you SANSKRIT /INDIAN style..?ive not read his book but from what i read he has been targeting what he believes are religion and says that they are harmful for society.
ohk so i tolerate him
what next he targets christianity,judaism,islam etc.
that is what I've read from the reviews

[ if i am wrong at any stage where what I've read about him is incorrect please correct me]

ohk so he thinks these are organised religions and they are not suited for growth and all

ohk fine ill tolerate him for just a second before i make my point..

when you talk about religion arent you supposed to include all
i mean either you define religion properly...and then attack or you don't altougether..

what about religions like hinduism,buddhism,jainism,other eastern great "religions"
is there a mention of such religions in his so called "BOOK"?

from what I've read there isnt
so what i infer is that he is some kitty who is i should say trying to prove his santity by disproving others by avoiding those who become a hurdle in his path..
isnt that now soo unscientific...
also by the looks of it he seems to be the biggest threat to humans than hitler...
but then again those are my views from the facts that I've got to know
then again my facts maybe wrong..
do correct me if they are
 
Last edited:
  • #150
Some delusions are harmless, others are not.
What was the point again, navneet?
 

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