|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
 Posted - 07/31/2006 : 14:00:36
|
A fascinating quick read interview with Richard Dawkins. A new book, "The God Delusion", is in the works due out next year.
"Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains why God is a delusion, religion is a virus, and America has slipped back into the Dark Ages."
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/index.html?pn=1
|
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 07/31/2006 : 16:17:03 [Permalink]
|
| That is a good interview. I had the energy to read through the whole thing, and I copied some intriguing paragraphs to comment on later, but I don't quite have the energy to do so now. But I really enjoyed it, especially after being disappointed with some parts of "The Root of All Evil?" Thanks for posting. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 18:29:07 [Permalink]
|
Response to Dawkins. quote:
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.
I tend to agree with him here if only because acting on irrational beliefs about the natural world inevitably yields unintended and undesirable results (like blood-letting!) I just worry about whether I will live to see it pass. (Blood-letting was practiced for hundreds of years!)
quote:
What I think may be abuse is labeling children with religious labels like Catholic child and Muslim child. I find it very odd that in our civilization we're quite happy to speak of a Catholic child that is 4 years old or a Muslim of child that is 4, when these children are much too young to know what they think about the cosmos, life and morality. We wouldn't dream of speaking of a Keynesian child or a Marxist child. And yet, for some reason we make a privileged exception of religion. And, by the way, I think it would also be abuse to talk about an atheist child.
I never thought about it this way before. I don't think it harmed me any to have been labeled a Catholic kid (if my parents ever actually called me that. I'm not even sure. Though I did go to church and Catholic schools.) I always just figured I'd tell my own kids “We're Humanists, but you can change your mind.” Maybe it isn't labeling a kid with a worldview that is so bad, but pressuring the kid to keep that worldview. My mom did a weird thing… she never pressured me to stay Catholic when I was a kid converting to agnosticism, but she did pressure me to return to Catholicism after I moved out and was a full adult.
quote:
It would also be a better place if morality was all about doing good to others and refraining from hurting them, rather than religion's morbid obsession with private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment.
I don't get why he has to make rash generalizations like this. Plenty of religious individuals and communities, especially post Enlightenment, have been “all about doing good to others and refraining from hurting them.” I work for Quakers and they have zero obsessions regarding “private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment”.
quote:
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.
Some have argued that by limiting the language Dawkins is only propping up the fundamentalists who would agree with using such exclusive and specific definitions. During the entire modernist era, definitions of many |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/07/2006 18:32:30 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 20:25:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
It would also be a better place if morality was all about doing good to others and refraining from hurting them, rather than religion's morbid obsession with private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment.
I don't get why he has to make rash generalizations like this. Plenty of religious individuals and communities, especially post Enlightenment, have been “all about doing good to others and refraining from hurting them.” I work for Quakers and they have zero obsessions regarding “private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment”.
While he doesn't specifically say, I believe he is just talking about Christian and other fundamentalists.
When I think religion, I think Christians. It's not that I don't know or recognize other religions, it's just that Christianity has been the largest religous influence on my life (that is, my rejection of it), and I think it's the same way for many Americans, atheist or not. Because of this influence, we tend to lazily think that religion = Christianity. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 22:18:46 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote: quote:
While he doesn't specifically say, I believe he is just talking about Christian and other fundamentalists.
I think you are right.
quote:
When I think religion, I think Christians. It's not that I don't know or recognize other religions, it's just that Christianity has been the largest religous influence on my life (that is, my rejection of it), and I think it's the same way for many Americans, atheist or not. Because of this influence, we tend to lazily think that religion = Christianity.
Why does everybody still talk about Christianity as if it is this monolithic thing? Protestants grouped together now outnumber Catholics, and Protestants themselves range so wildly that groups of either end of the theological spectrum barely resemble each other. OK, rant off.
I know it is lazy, Western-centered thinking that causes this, but part of the reason I keep crying out for accuracy and recognition of both Christian minorities and exotic other-religions is because I feel this laziness is a giving in to fundamentalist Christian desires. Fundies want everyone to think of fundamentalism when the word "Christian" is uttered. They want "religion" to be associated with sexual prudishness, guilt over sin, the threat of hell, and a conscious and singular father-like almighty God. They don't deserve to win this war over semantics! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/07/2006 22:19:57 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2006 : 00:46:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
quote:
It would also be a better place if morality was all about doing good to others and refraining from hurting them, rather than religion's morbid obsession with private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment.
I don't get why he has to make rash generalizations like this. Plenty of religious individuals and communities, especially post Enlightenment, have been “all about doing good to others and refraining from hurting them.” I work for Quakers and they have zero obsessions regarding “private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment”.
While he doesn't specifically say, I believe he is just talking about Christian and other fundamentalists.
It's not just Christians - The Dalai Lama is strongly against homosexuality. In Canada their has been strong opposition to Gay marriage from Hindu and Sikh religous leaders as well as conservative Jews and Muslims. Christians are probably a bigger portion of the pro Gay Marriage side in Canada than they are of the anti-Gay marriage side. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2006 : 01:14:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Why does everybody still talk about Christianity as if it is this monolithic thing? Protestants grouped together now outnumber Catholics, and Protestants themselves range so wildly that groups of either end of the theological spectrum barely resemble each other. OK, rant off.
I know it is lazy, Western-centered thinking that causes this, but part of the reason I keep crying out for accuracy and recognition of both Christian minorities and exotic other-religions is because I feel this laziness is a giving in to fundamentalist Christian desires. Fundies want everyone to think of fundamentalism when the word "Christian" is uttered. They want "religion" to be associated with sexual prudishness, guilt over sin, the threat of hell, and a conscious and singular father-like almighty God. They don't deserve to win this war over semantics!
When speaking about religion, most people implicitly mean the large, visible groups, which in the case of christianity are the Catholics, Protestants, and Baptists. These liberal Unitarian christians or whomever you think is "losing the semantics war" simply don't exist in any sizable number to matter. Are there liberal Catholics? Sure. But they are still Catholics. So whatever their personal opinions on say, gay marriage, it is irrelevant to the larger social debate. It isn't incorrect to say Catholics oppose gay marriage without having to add the clause "but not all," since Catholics' official position as a unified group is to oppose gay marriage.
So Dawkins isn't making a "rash generalization" when he says religion is based on "private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment," since all the major ones are in a big way. Regardless of what individuals might pick and choose out of their particular faith, the concepts of sin and "weakness of the flesh" are historical facts within the faiths themselves. The only time concepts like "sexual prudishness, guilt over sin, the threat of hell, and a conscious and singular father-like almighty God" will cease to be associated with christianity is when christianity no longer exists. Whatever religion that replaces it will certainly have no resemblance to the religion which is being referred to today.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/08/2006 01:14:52 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2006 : 09:02:46 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote: quote:
The only time I've ever heard the words "Fundamentalist Christian" uses with a positive connotation is on a fundamentalist Christian board. I had a public speaking professor who went of topic, as he normally did, and started talking about Christian fundamentalists. He felt he had to put in a disclaimer that he was not using the term to insult.
Never in actual life have I heard those two words used in a positive manner.
That's not what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was that I hear more and more people using the term "Christian" by itself as a synonym for "Fundamentalist Christian". I totally agree with you that fundamentalist has a derogatory connotation.
Humbert wrote: quote:
When speaking about religion, most people implicitly mean the large, visible groups, which in the case of christianity are the Catholics, Protestants, and Baptists. These liberal Unitarian christians or whomever you think is "losing the semantics war" simply don't exist in any sizable number to matter. Are there liberal Catholics? Sure. But they are still Catholics. So whatever their personal opinions on say, gay marriage, it is irrelevant to the larger social debate.
I disagree. First of all, Baptists are a type of Protestant, so I'm not sure why you separated them.
Next, there aren't just liberal Catholics. There are liberal Catholic institutions such as groups for gay Catholics and pro-choice Catholics. There are Catholic churches and other communities that quietly, but visibly, defy the messages that trickle out of Rome, and this is there on the radio and in articles in the newspaper for anyone with an interest to witness. I don't go out seeking this type of info, and yet I find it on NPR and in my local newspaper. The biggest Catholic Church here in Philly (St. Joseph's - a Franciscan church) recieved a letter from the local diocese to oppose a local bill for benefits-for-partners of city workers. The head priest read the letter to the entire congregation and then ripped it up in front of them. Not to mention all the Catholics who openly spoke out against the recent choice for Pope as well as the recent new rule about no gay priests. I even heard a priest on the radio speaking out against that issue! Finally, there is the history that Catholicism changes over time, which is largely why educated Catholics are attempting to influence those changes. There has been a mini culture war within Catholic communities in the first world going on since at least the 60's, and considering that Catholics are nearly a quarter of the US population, I don't think so much dissent should be so carelessly ignored while making generalizations.
The third largest religious denomination is the Methodists, and the largest group among them is the United Methodists. These are the ones who have also been having a very visible battle which can be read about in mainstream newspapers. United Methodists are not fundamentatlists and encourage a good deal of individual-thinking in their members. And although they are torn on many political issues, they do not obsess about abortion and homosexuality or take hardline official stances on either. They are very much in flux.
Fifth largest, Presbyterians - you know, the ones who let that atheist guy in Texas join their church? Presbyterians do not have any strong central control. The individual churches and clergy-members have huge range, from very liberal to very conservative.
Seventh largest, Episcopalians - you know, the ones you have Bishop John Spong, a virtual atheist writing best-selling books such as "Saving the Bible from Fundamentalism"? Episcopalians have gotten so liberal in both theology and moral teachings that there is talk of an official split between them and their more conservative Anglican counterpart.
And the tenth largest - United Church of Christ. The ones that put out a national television ad about welcoming gay couples into their congregations. Also, Rev. Barry Lyn, the President of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, is a United Church of Christ clergymember.
Fundamentalits themselves are a minority. They are roughly a quarter of the population.
In the USA, which has more religious diversity than any other nation in the world, the idea that it is perfectly acceptable to use to the naked term "religion" to refer specifically to Christian fundamentalists is dishonest and biased.
(All facts and figures taken from http://www.adherents.com/)
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2006 : 09:08:35 [Permalink]
|
Maybe part of the reason I got a bug up my butt about this issue is that I've lived in Philadelphia the past 2 years. Philly was the first capital of the USA, and it was founded by William Penn and fellow Quakers who had a dream about a city where people of various faiths could live beside one another in peace. This was the first American city to have religious freedom (sadly, this was 400 years ago, so religious freedom still only extended to those who believed in a god). It was the first city where a Catholic church was allowed to be built. When the Catholic's ran out of dough and were going to lose their church, the Quakers helped them financially. When the Jews were persecuted by Protestants, the Catholics built them a center where they could gather in peace. And when Catholics nearly lost their church again, this time a rich Jewish woman helped them out to pay back the favor. I work for Quakers. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses regularly knock on my door. I see black Muslims in the streets and in my classrooms every day. Maybe in the deep South in makes sense to use "religion" and "fundamentalist Christian" interchangible, but where I live that's just stupid.
And considering this is an international forum...
Edited to fix a typo - I wrote "200 years" instead of "400 years". Oopsie. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/08/2006 09:11:11 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2006 : 09:36:36 [Permalink]
|
Quakers are Christians. And Quakers are not just one thing. There are almost as many different kinds of Quakers as there are Quakers.
Is this a reasonable account of what fundamentalist Christianity is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 08/08/2006 10:08:29 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2006 : 11:38:59 [Permalink]
|
| Actually, Marf, I think Dawkins' generalization is as valid as the statement "men have penises." Yes, there are exceptions, but these things are, in general, true. A rash generalization might be "since Marf is a Humanist, so must be the rest of her family." Rash generalizations come from having too small a sample, and I don't think Dawkins is thinking about just fundamentalists, or even just Christians. Rules about sexual conduct spring from many religions. Islam certainly isn't innocent of it, and between them and the Christians, that's some 64% of all the world's religious people. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2006 : 12:04:35 [Permalink]
|
The last people I remember heavily protesting a movie, were Jews. Thanks to Mel. (They had a legitimate gripe, IMO)
But for the most part I agree with the point, I have never been approached/bugged/harrassed by any religion which was not 'Christian' oriented. I live in Michigan BTW, in a reasonably liberal area. (we still have a Christian sect church every 500 feet though)
I have no doubt however that if any religion was in the place of Christianity in America they would act the same way. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2006 : 12:09:41 [Permalink]
|
| How about Moonies or Hare Krishna? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2006 : 12:16:38 [Permalink]
|
| If that happens Ill just kill myself. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
