Which part of the God Delusion did you find most offensive? (beliefs, experience)

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by lilithu

1. If Dawkins had said that he recognizes that there is a diverse range of beliefs, positions, and approaches in the Abrahmic traditions, but that he is concerned about some particularly virulent strains of thought and how they are leading to things like 9/11, I would have been in complete agreement with him. But that's NOT what he said.

So, do you think that I don't recognize there is a diverse range of beliefs, positions and approaches in the Abrahamic traditions?

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

But which is more indicative of mainstream religion, the scholarly theologian or the web based commentator? Which is having a greater effect on government policy? Which is having a greater effect on society?

I agree that the fact that Dawkins doesn’t acknowledge the more thoughtful intellectual religious position is a critical flaw in his premise and an indication of ignorance on his part. But if he had done this I believe that he could have justified his decision to focus on more mainstream (common) religious expressions.

I think that most people brought up with a childhood religion become apathetic (either non-attending but identifying with the religion, or paying lip service to it) and their intellectual understanding of their religion therefore rarely extends beyond childhood concepts. Therefore the level of "web based commentator" understanding is more common, but the apathetic element means they really don't exert effect on anyone.

The prolific religious scholar is a rarity, which is unfortunate because it generally means that there are only a few people to offer the public religious opinions on political/social topics. The religiously clued up will explore the issue personally, but the majority of the religious will follow their religious leaders' statement just because it is under the banner they most identify with. In that way, the majority do not really exert pressure, but act as extensions of the leaders' opinion.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Jay

His position is preposterously ignorant and condescending. To stigmatize three religious traditions because of what he heard some people say on an web-based forum is a joke. Does he honestly believe that such institutions as University of the Chicago Divinity School or the Hebrew Union College (or countless similar examples) spend their time in thoughtless devotion? It's foolishly propagated prejudicial drivel, nothing more.

Or it's based on study and knowedge, even though it goes against you narrow view of things. It has been helped by my time here, but that is a small part of my overall knowledge of the subject. I'm sorry that you have to consider anything that contradicts your ideas to be ignorant and condescending, but you are wrong. There is nothing condescending in what I say, and that would seem to be evident by the fact that you will neither back up your statements nor explain them in any detail. Of course you only take my comments the way you want which is evidenced by the fact that you like to isolate half a line and "respond" to that. I never said there were not people who put a lot of thought into their Abrahamic religion. In fact I've said the opposite. What I expressly said was that the religions promote a general belief without thinking. There is nothing in that statement that says that all adherents of those faiths always believe without thinking, just that it is a teaching of the faiths.

I, in fact, said that not all adherents follow this path, but you probably missed that part as it agrees with your ideas, and wouldn't further your snide comments towards me. It would be nice if you realized that calling people names and calling their ideas unfounded names doesn't help anyone. There is nothing about what I said which is prejudiced or drivel.

Thank you again for your rousing debate technique of just calling anything that contradicts your views "rubbish" or "ignorant", etc., without actually trying to debate the issue. If you really don't like my point of view, those things only help to push me farther away from your position. Rational, non-name-calling discourse of ideas and their logicality and evidence goes much further towards coming to an understanding. I invite you to give it a try.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

I think that most people brought up with a childhood religion become apathetic (either non-attending but identifying with the religion, or paying lip service to it) and their intellectual understanding of their religion therefore rarely extends beyond childhood concepts. Therefore the level of "web based commentator" understanding is more common, but the apathetic element means they really don't exert effect on anyone.

The prolific religious scholar is a rarity, which is unfortunate because it generally means that there are only a few people to offer the public religious opinions on political/social topics. The religiously clued up will explore the issue personally, but the majority of the religious will follow their religious leaders' statement just because it is under the banner they most identify with. In that way, the majority do not really exert pressure, but act as extensions of the leaders' opinion.

Excellent observation! It's true even for LDS.

[Apex]

A lot of these arguments seem to be trying to take the actions of the extreme few and apply them to the whole.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Jay

Does he honestly believe that such institutions as University of the Chicago Divinity School or the Hebrew Union College (or countless similar examples) spend their time in thoughtless devotion?

I'm not saying this to be critical of mball, who I think is an intelligent and kind young man, but I don't think he's given much thought to these schools, Jay.

I can't blame him. When I was in the Georgetown masters program, my first proposal for a thesis centered on tracing American Anti-Intellectualism, starting with the Puritans onward. My adviser kindly asked whether I had researched this proposal beforehand, given that the Puritans (Congregationalists) founded both Harvard and Yale. That did kind of put a damper on my idea and I decided to pick another topic.

I don't think that most people, whether religious or otherwise, know that most of our greatest academic institutions are affiliated with religious institutions. To say that religion discourages intellect ignores the fact that both Harvard and Yale were started by Congregationalists, Brandeis by Jews, Columbia by Anglicans (now Episcopalians), Princeton by Presbyterians, Penn by Quakers, Georgetown by Catholics, etc., etc. Oberlin was founded by evangelical Christians, and it was the first college to admit blacks and women.

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Excellent observation! It's true even for LDS.

Indeed. No religion is particularly exempt from having its members follow the leader.

I think, however, that the LDS church is better than some religions in allowing the members to decide on certain issues rather than defining every last detail.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

Indeed. No religion is particularly exempt from having its members follow the leader.

I think, however, that the LDS church is better than some religions in allowing the members to decide on certain issues rather than defining every last detail.

Maybe, but not good enough in that department for me.