Dawkins banned due to atheism

[jarofthoughts]

I think at least we can agree that whether or not Dawkins is militant, extreme etc... he is at least not respectful in his approach, and for many mature, tolerant and respectful people, he does not have much to offer on the topic of religion.

Quite possible, like i said i haven't read or seen pretty much most of his work. However, to a public figure, a representative, i don't think certain mistakes can be brushed away like that.

That is, a couple of those mistakes are enough to turn people away from him and label him as disrespectful. Its not like the incidents where he 'slips' were just moments were he was surprised or not ready and made a mistake, its moments where he knows he's supposed to be offering what he has to say in a respectful manner and has the time to calm himself to do that, otherwise he's going to insult lots of people and dismiss their views or positions, beliefs etc.. in a rather too hostile manner.

You talk a lot about him being disrespectful.
What exactly do you mean by that?
Why do you think he -should- be respectful, and in what manner should this be expressed do you think?
I'm genuinely interested to know.

 

[Mister Emu]

He does put the statement in context quite well--all that stuff that you heard as :ignore:.

I read it, I just didn't want to list it (ok, I also wanted to give an idea of my impression of it ).

He is saying that it can sometimes be construed as hostile and contemptuous, and he explains the specific context in which it can be construed that way.

If so, I wrongly understood it... I saw him as listing reasons why he is hostile towards and contemptuous of religion. If he meant he was hostile in only the context of those following actions done in the name of religion(I disagree on raising kids religiously but death/assault, yeah) then I was wrong and my position is retracted.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think at least we can agree that whether or not Dawkins is militant, extreme etc... he is at least not respectful in his approach, and for many mature, tolerant and respectful people, he does not have much to offer on the topic of religion.

I can understand how you feel that way but I disagree. I think Dawkins has an enormous amount to offer on the topic of religion. Marx may say that capitalism is foul, Socrates may say that hedonism is pitiful, and Dawkins may say that religion is contemptible. If one is an adult and one is seriously interested in the truth, being offended is the least of one's concerns compared to the evidence and the logic behind these claims.

What if the truth IS offensive? What if I DO believe something ridiculous? I don't mind someone saying so. I WANT someone to say so, if it is true. I only mind if they offer no sincere arguments in support of their claim.

Imagine a capitalist philosopher dismissing Marx, not on the basis of his reason and evidence, but because Marx's arguments against capitalism were irreverent. Would there be something wrong with that? I think so. If one is interested in the truth, that is.

Dawkins was on a TV show and, among many opponents, one guy was Muslim. Dawkins repeatedly asked him, is a Muslim free to leave Islam? What is the punishment for apostasy? The guy finally answered that in an Islamic State, the punishment is death. When Richard Dawkins speaks of religion this is the context he is speaking in, a world full of contemptible religious beliefs, like this one. Dawkins holds such views in contempt and so do I, and I don't mind saying so to any who will listen. I know apostates of Islam, some are good friends of mine. Sorry, but religion is, very often, contemptible. I say this in the spirit (I think) of Marx and Socrates and Dawkins and others who hope people will see why such ideas are contemptible.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I can understand how you feel that way but I disagree. I think Dawkins has an enormous amount to offer on the topic of religion. Marx may say that capitalism is foul, Socrates may say that hedonism is pitiful, and Dawkins may say that religion is contemptible. If one is an adult and one is seriously interested in the truth, being offended is the least of one's concerns compared to the evidence and the logic behind these claims.

What if the truth IS offensive? What if I DO believe something ridiculous? I don't mind someone saying so. I WANT someone to say so, if it is true. I only mind if they offer no sincere arguments in support of their claim.

Imagine a capitalist philosopher dismissing Marx, not on the basis of his reason and evidence, but because Marx's arguments against capitalism were irreverent. Would there be something wrong with that? I think so. If one is interested in the truth, that is.

Dawkins was on a TV show and, among many opponents, one guy was Muslim. Dawkins repeatedly asked him, is a Muslim free to leave Islam? What is the punishment for apostasy? The guy finally answered that in an Islamic State, the punishment is death. When Richard Dawkins speaks of religion this is the context he is speaking in, a world full of contemptible religious beliefs, like this one. Dawkins holds such views in contempt and so do I, and I don't mind saying so to any who will listen. I know apostates of Islam, some are good friends of mine. Sorry, but religion is, very often, contemptible. I say this in the spirit (I think) of Marx and Socrates and Dawkins and others who hope people will see why such ideas are contemptible.

:clap

 

[atanu]

--- I say this in the spirit (I think) of Marx and Socrates and Dawkins and others who hope people will see why such ideas are contemptible.

Except that Marx and Dawkins will not agree with you there about that spirit that you are talking about.

I happenned to be a Marxist for very long time and still hold its ideals close to heart. But the very reason, I think, that Marxist theory is not complete, is nearly the reason (in my opinion) why Dawkin's et al are flawed. YMMV.

 

[Darkness]

Then you must recall something of the context: Religion's Real Child Abuse. (See also the same argument in The God Delusion.) Dawkins was specifically comparing the actions of sexual predator priests with those who preach the doctrine of hell. He was making the point that the trauma induced by the sexual fondling of children, while extremely damaging, is not necessarily as damaging as telling children that they will go to hell if they do not belong to the right religion. I am not in full agreement with his point, but it was not exactly the same as comparing all forms of religion to all forms of child abuse. The essay was actually quite thought-provoking. It is also frequently quote-mined to give the impression that Dawkins was equating religion in general with child abuse in general.


Nonsense. He acknowledges that all the time. You have either had very little exposure to his writings, or you have a very selective memory. It can motivate good or bad behavior. When it motivates good behavior, it does so for the wrong reason--that good behavior is God's will rather than that it is humane behavior.


His argument is that religion suppresses critical thinking and that the world would be a better place if people were taught to think critically. He has explicitly argued that religion can promote both good and bad behavior. That is not the issue. The issue is that the means by which it promotes moral behavior can too easily be subverted to have the opposite effect.


Well, I actually visited the SU in its heyday, and religion was something very much on my mind at the time. It was a far more complex society than you give it credit for when you make a sweeping generalization about atheism and authoritarianism. The SU was an extremely conservative, authoritarian regime. That authoritarianism had nothing at all to do with atheism but with the way that the Communist Party ran the country. Atheism was promoted for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that the Russian Orthodox Church was associated with the power structure that the Revolution had overturned. The Party attempted to inject itself as a substitute for the ROC. They became the self-proclaimed arbiters of moral behavior.

Well, I will make an effort to re-evaluate Richard Dawkins. Maybe I am basing my opinion of him on the people who proselytise in his name, rather than the man himself. Yet, he is wrong in saying that religious people only act altruistically because of God's Will. Many people believe that God does what is right and is thus a role model, not that whatever God does is right.

 

[atanu]

Well, I will make an effort to re-evaluate Richard Dawkins.

Same applies to examining of scripture, IMO.

 

[idav]

Yet, he is wrong in saying that religious people only act altruistically because of God's Will. Many people believe that God does what is right and is thus a role model, not that whatever God does is right.

So many people use god as a crutch for morality. It isn't that they aren't moral but the way people view their worldview is that doing right is for seeing god. Once that is taken away there is no other reason. I've seen this more often than most. Jesus tried to teach some common sense to laws so lessen the confusion.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, I will make an effort to re-evaluate Richard Dawkins. Maybe I am basing my opinion of him on the people who proselytise in his name, rather than the man himself. Yet, he is wrong in saying that religious people only act altruistically because of God's Will. Many people believe that God does what is right and is thus a role model, not that whatever God does is right.

Dawkins does not claim that people only act altruistically because of God's will. Religion usually teaches that morality depends on the will of God (or some external authority) alone. Nothing else. The problem is that they act in conformity with an imaginary authority, and they are influenced by the opinions of others on what that authority decrees.

Not all spiritual leaders preach a benevolent vision of God. Indeed, there are many biblical passages which, if taken literally, make God out to be a petty, vindictive tyrant. And there are spiritual leaders who promote those passages as the literal truth. If that vision of God becomes the ideal, then people can come up with some pretty distorted views of what constitutes moral behavior. You end up with people who shoot doctors in the name of preserving life or who commit mass murder while shouting praises to their God.

 

[waitasec]

Essay by Dawkins comparing religion to a mental virus:

Viruses of the Mind


But wait - there's MORE!
In The Selfish Gene Dawkins explains this phenomenon of denial and deceit: "The survival value of the god meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal.

It provides a superficially plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about existence. It suggests that injustices in this world may be rectified in the next.

The 'everlasting arms' hold out a cushion against our inadequacies which, like a doctor's placebo, is none the less effective for being imaginary.

These are some of the reasons why the idea of God is copied so readily by successive generations of brains. God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture."

explain how that is contemptuous and hostile?

 

[Sunstone]

explain how that is contemptuous and hostile?

Let alone militant and extremist.

 

[atanu]

explain how that is contemptuous and hostile?

It is not. But what is scientific about speculations of Meme etc.? How it is different from the understanding of knowledge as the spirit?

Literalists do not get the message of ultimate oneness of existence in scripture. And, IMO, Dawkin's et al are on the other pole of the same bipolar error.

Sorry.:sorry1:

 

[Kathryn]

explain how that is contemptuous and hostile?

I didn't say it was contemptuous and hostile. You asked for proof that Dawkins had compared religion to a virus of the mind and so I gave it to you.

 

[Kathryn]

Let alone militant and extremist.

I didn't say he was militant or extremist either.

 

[Badran]

You talk a lot about him being disrespectful.
What exactly do you mean by that?
Why do you think he -should- be respectful, and in what manner should this be expressed do you think?
I'm genuinely interested to know.

Sure

For example, in the video posted by Mr Spinkles, if you have seen it you'll note that in the beginning when Dawkins was arguing against the things proposed by the interviewer, at many points he either laughed, confidently dismissed people's experiences as delusions etc... then in the end of the video when the interviewer was acting in a similar way towards Dawkins's explanations, what did Dawkins say?

He pointed out that he's demeaning it, told him at another point to not shake his head as its entirely possible, when in fact what the interviewer was doing was much less than what Dawkins did. Point is, not only is it indeed disrespectful but in fact he recognizes that what he does is so. In other words, at least in both my view and in Dawkins, he is not respectful towards neither religious people nor their views (at least not always).

 

[Badran]

I can understand how you feel that way but I disagree. I think Dawkins has an enormous amount to offer on the topic of religion. Marx may say that capitalism is foul, Socrates may say that hedonism is pitiful, and Dawkins may say that religion is contemptible. If one is an adult and one is seriously interested in the truth, being offended is the least of one's concerns compared to the evidence and the logic behind these claims.

What if the truth IS offensive? What if I DO believe something ridiculous? I don't mind someone saying so. I WANT someone to say so, if it is true. I only mind if they offer no sincere arguments in support of their claim.

Imagine a capitalist philosopher dismissing Marx, not on the basis of his reason and evidence, but because Marx's arguments against capitalism were irreverent. Would there be something wrong with that? I think so. If one is interested in the truth, that is.

Actually i agree with all of what you said. In an earlier post where i clarified why i personally am not interested in hearing what he has to say, i clarified better why i hold this position regarding what he has to say.

Dawkins was on a TV show and, among many opponents, one guy was Muslim. Dawkins repeatedly asked him, is a Muslim free to leave Islam? What is the punishment for apostasy? The guy finally answered that in an Islamic State, the punishment is death. When Richard Dawkins speaks of religion this is the context he is speaking in, a world full of contemptible religious beliefs, like this one. Dawkins holds such views in contempt and so do I, and I don't mind saying so to any who will listen. I know apostates of Islam, some are good friends of mine. Sorry, but religion is, very often, contemptible. I say this in the spirit (I think) of Marx and Socrates and Dawkins and others who hope people will see why such ideas are contemptible.

And because of the fact that i as a Muslim find the punishment for apostasy disgusting, unfair, wrong etc... oppose it and have had countless debates with other Muslims trying to point that out, and trying to argue against it from an Islamic prospective, jabs at religion or religionists in general become even more distasteful.

 

[work in progress]

That cartoon sidesteps the fact that some of the celebrity atheists - like Hitchens, use secular values of the enlightenment to make a case for American and European exceptionalism, which has included the right to invade less enlightened nations and enforce regime change.....and I would consider that a lot more threatening than drinking too many beers at an atheist/humanist pub night!

 

[waitasec]

I didn't say it was contemptuous and hostile. You asked for proof that Dawkins had compared religion to a virus of the mind and so I gave it to you.

you overlooked and important part of the question...

show me any footage where dawkins is hostile and contemptuous...
go ahead try it.

waiting.

 

[work in progress]

explain how that is contemptuous and hostile?

It's a good thing his fellow scientists stopped taking Dawkins's notion of memes as conceptual self-replicators seriously, because, when he wrote that Viruses of the Mind essay 20 years ago, he presented a case that religions are collections of harmful viral memes, or mind viruses that have overtaken the host, and prevent him or her from thinking rationally...if we go by his anecdote about former priest-turned-philosopher Anthony Kenny. And Kenny is saved from a life of zombie-like servitude to the Church when his mind is strong enough to fight off the infection and realize the contradictions of his religious beliefs.

I would say that presenting religious ideas as mind viruses invading a host, served as the justification for Dawkins declaring that religion should not be allowed to be taught to children. Teaching a child religion is infecting their minds with harmful memes. This could have led to potentially dangerous results in the wrong hands, so it's a good thing that memetics has been pretty much abandoned as a dead end in recent years. The biggest problem with Dawkins books and essays on religion is that he uses a sleight of hand to make incorrect belief = harmful belief without demonstrating that ideas or concepts that may be mythical or allegorical are necessarily harmful.

The biggest weakness of what's called "new atheism" represented by Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris and others, is that a number of research psychologists who mostly focus on studying children, are finding that our basic intuitions contain ideas of essentialism and creating teleological explanations for understanding the world around us. These are building block concepts of most religions, and they are not taught to us, and cannot really be removed from us....just overruled by the methods of reasoning we develop a little later in life. Some of us don't seem to feel a need to believe that we live in a universe specially created for us, while others do. But, instead of going on some futile crusade to try to stamp out religion and all supernatural ideas, the new atheists should not be trying to lump all religions and their adherents together with some fundamentalists who can be shown to be clearly causing harm to themselves and others.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Sure

Thanks.

For example, in the video posted by Mr Spinkles, if you have seen it you'll note that in the beginning when Dawkins was arguing against the things proposed by the interviewer, at many points he either laughed, confidently dismissed people's experiences as delusions etc...

For someone who bases their view of reality on evidence, these things are indeed silly and ridiculous, and personally, I think Dawkins was rather nice about it to be honest.
Now, I'm admitting that I might be biased because I share his views on the topic, but if the topic had been something else, say politics, economic systems or sports, would you still have thought of him as disrespectful?
What I'm getting at is that people use much harsher arguments and tones when discussing many topics without anyone calling them disrespectful, but all of a sudden when it comes to religion, it is somehow not okay, which puzzles me.

...then in the end of the video when the interviewer was acting in a similar way towards Dawkins's explanations, what did Dawkins say?
He pointed out that he's demeaning it, told him at another point to not shake his head as its entirely possible, when in fact what the interviewer was doing was much less than what Dawkins did. Point is, not only is it indeed disrespectful but in fact he recognizes that what he does is so.

I suspect that Dawkins did not respond in that manner because the interviewer was disrespectful but rather because the interviewer was wrong.
The explanation given by Dawkins is not only possible, but highly plausible and supported by plenty of evidence.

In other words, at least in both my view and in Dawkins, he is not respectful towards neither religious people nor their views (at least not always).

And that brings me to my second question, which I think you did not answer:
Why should he be respectful of religious views and how should he express this?