Bits of Richard Dawkins

[spudtater]

Richard Dawkins, it seems, is getting pretty vitriolic about religion. (His new book is going to be called "The God Delusion"...) This is good, because it means that instead of causing massive flame wars, I can just quote him to insult people, and play the concerned, compromising atheist in comparison. Mwahahahaha!   >8^D

No, in all seriousness, I'm a little torn. On one hand it embarrasses me that somebody can be an atheist and yet be just as insulting about someone's beliefs as the religious themselves can be. On the other hand, I can't fault his reasoning; religion is utterly unsupported by objective evidence, it causes frequent wars, and in its extreme form it can utterly destroy rational thought. How do I justify my tolerance of it? Hmmm... I shall ponder this and get back to you. In the meantime, have some tidbits:

INTERVIEWER: Still, so many people resist believing in evolution. Where does the resistance come from?

DAWKINS: It comes, I'm sorry to say, from religion. And from bad religion. You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States.

My American friends tell me that you are slipping towards a theocratic Dark Age. Which is very disagreeable for the very large number of educated, intelligent and right-thinking people in America. Unfortunately, at present, it's slightly outnumbered by the ignorant, uneducated people who voted Bush in.

But the broad direction of history is toward enlightenment, and so I think that what America is going through at the moment will prove to be a temporary reverse. I think there is great hope for the future. My advice would be, Don't despair, these things pass.

[...]

INTERVIEWER: You are working on a new book tentatively called "The God Delusion." Can you explain it?

DAWKINS: A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence. Religion is scarcely distinguishable from childhood delusions like the "imaginary friend" and the bogeyman under the bed. Unfortunately, the God delusion possesses adults, and not just a minority of unfortunates in an asylum. The word "delusion" also carries negative connotations, and religion has plenty of those.

INTERVIEWER: What are its negative connotations?

DAWKINS: A delusion that encourages belief where there is no evidence is asking for trouble. Disagreements between incompatible beliefs cannot be settled by reasoned argument because reasoned argument is drummed out of those trained in religion from the cradle. Instead, disagreements are settled by other means which, in extreme cases, inevitably become violent. Scientists disagree among themselves but they never fight over their disagreements. They argue about evidence or go out and seek new evidence. Much the same is true of philosophers, historians and literary critics.

But you don't do that if you just know your holy book is the God-written truth and the other guy knows that his incompatible scripture is too. People brought up to believe in faith and private revelation cannot be persuaded by evidence to change their minds. No wonder religious zealots throughout history have resorted to torture and execution, to crusades and jihads, to holy wars and purges and pogroms, to the Inquisition and the burning of witches.

[...]

INTERVIEWER: Is there an emotional side to the intellectual enterprise of exploring the story of life on Earth?

DAWKINS: Yes, I strongly feel that. When you meet a scientist who calls himself or herself religious, you'll often find that that's what they mean. You often find that by "religious" they do not mean anything supernatural. They mean precisely the kind of emotional response to the natural world that you've described. Einstein had it very strongly. Unfortunately, he used the word "God" to describe it, which has led to a great deal of misunderstanding. But Einstein had that feeling, I have that feeling, you'll find it in the writings of many scientists. It's a kind of quasi-religious feeling. And there are those who wish to call it religious and who therefore are annoyed when a scientist calls himself an atheist. They think, "No, you believe in this transcendental feeling, you can't be an atheist." That's a confusion of language.

Quotes taken from http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/

Comments

[luckylove.livejournal.com]

I like those quotes. He's basically just told it like it is. Or how he sees it without really insulting anyone, (that's my opinion.) It's only an opinion and he's entitled to it.
I think that's what I'm trying to say.

[gominokouhai]

Alcohol is a delusion. Problems do not magically disappear when we drink. It leads to violence and, in extreme cases, to the destruction of the self.

Religion is wicked. Sometimes, individual religious people can be kind of cool (uberjoe). Everything in moderation---it's only when it becomes extreme that it causes a problem in our day-to-day lives.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

A fair point. Someone drinking rubbing alcohol on the street is not the same as someone enjoying a nice pint in the pub. Analogously, just because religion has blind faith as its essence, doesn't mean that it should be crushed under a booted heel.

[brucec.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely sure it does have blind faith as its essence - I've known Christians who, although the bible says God created the Earth, didn't believe that, but believed instead in the Big Bang and evolution - that is, they actually queried what they were told, based on what they'd learned previously. Anyone who's sensible and intelligent can believe the general story and decide not to believe in some of the specifics. That is, they can still go to church and believe in God, but at the same time believe in science and scientific theories like the Big Bang.

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

Aye, but no matter how small the part of a religion that one actually believes in, that bit is based on sheer faith, not objective evidence.

I use 'blind' faith just as an emphatic; there's no justification at all for religious belief, except subjective opinion.

[nickys.livejournal.com]

Must lend you "Godless Morality" by Bishop Richard Holloway

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

Have read it. Very good premise; I really respect the guy for it, but I get the feeling he doesn't actually know that much about the youth of today.

token religious nut response

[uberjoe.livejournal.com]

bloody naturalists ;p

Dawkins been a victim of some pretty harsh attacks (whole books dedicated to why he's wrong etc.), so I can understand him being somewhat pissed, however the whole naturalists v. supernaturalists thing is a disgrace to the scientific community, not in the fact it's happening, but in the way people partaking in it are conducting themselves. It's pretty appalling looking on (from both sides it seems :( ). I would say that he perhaps overestimates the "liberalness" of the church in britain though...

Re: token religious nut response

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

It's all got a little personal, true, and Dawkins isn't helping. I blame the gulf of understanding between church and scientists.

On the other hand, though, it's nothing compared to the abortion "debate".   8^(   8^P