Dawkins 'in trouble'

pH

Anyone read Madeleine Bunting's op-ed piece in the Guardian?

Why the intelligent design lobby thanks God for Richard Dawkins

The key argument here is as follows

"Dawkins and Dennett are really dangerous, both at a moral and a legal level." The nub of Ruse's argument is that Darwinism does not lead ineluctably to atheism, and to claim that it does (as Dawkins does) provides the intelligent-design lobby with a legal loophole: "If Darwinism equals atheism then it can't be taught in US schools because of the constitutional separation of church and state. It gives the creationists a legal case. Dawkins and Dennett are handing these people a major tool."

The old chestnut "Atheism is a religion in the same was as not collecting stamps is a hobby" springs to mind.

Full Article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1740391,00.html

For those who find this kind of thing interesting there's a nice rebuttal:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/the_dawkinsdennett_boogeyman.php

The "Br'er Fox" and the briar patch reference just rings true for me!

Dades

Many, many things annoy me reading that article. :mad:

For one the creationist fallacy that Darwinism = atheism.

Also, as you've pointed out, pH, if it were the case that Darwinism was atheism (which it ain't) - atheism is not a religion therefore it doesn't even fall under the realm of "Church".

You get the impression making the above points would be met with fingers in the ears and loud songs of worship. Just be thankful you don't live in the US.

Dawkins, for all his forthright views, has actually done nothing wrong. He hasn't played into anybody's hands. The simple fact is his arguments have been twisted by incorrect and disingenuous classification. There is no defence again that.

Another annoyance is the apparant interchangeablity in the article of the terms "creationism" and "intelligent design". Obviously all creationists believe in intelligent design, but surely many ID'ers don't subscribe to that 'young earth' crap?

pH

Dawkins also does not claim that Darwinism leads to atheism.

He [Dawkins] has said that evolution made atheism intellectually respectable, by providing a natural explanation for a prominent feature of our world, organic life. He has said that religion is a foolish delusion, and on that I agree with him; are we to be denied the privilege of criticizing foolishness? No one claims that science leads inescapably to atheism, since as any idiot can tell, many good scientists are also religious (which, of course, does not make religion good).
from pharyngula (link above)

robindch

> Dawkins also does not claim that Darwinism leads to atheism.

That's as may be, but bear in mind that you're dealing with creationists here (Dembksi et al.), so disagreeable things like facts can simply be pushed off into dark corners to shrivel up and die. Mind you, it's still an interesting twist to see creationists claiming that evolution is an "establishment of religion" and therefore needing to be curtailed at federal level -- the outcome of the trial in Dover must have hurt them pretty bad.

And anyhow, while an understanding of evolution no more leads to atheism than does an understanding of quantum chromodynamics or where rain comes from, I suspect that a well-developed ability to assess facts and establish physical patterns could also lead one to the understanding that religion is simply a human construction, based upon fairly straightforward human needs and perceptions. And that, I think, is one of the reasons why creationists go to such lengths to create this hideous, immoral, pathological beast called "science" -- simply so that they can keep their own ragtag show on the road without too many dissenting voices.

archdukefranz

Richard Dawkins seems more out for himself and booksales than anything else

bus77

The Atheist wrote:

Another annoyance is the apparant interchangeablity in the article of the terms "creationism" and "intelligent design". Obviously all creationists believe in intelligent design, but surely many ID'ers don't subscribe to that 'young earth' crap?

What I'm wondering is how exactly would you go about presenting an ID class?
I'm at a loss at what possible teaching format they have in mind.

Zombrex

bus77 wrote:

What I'm wondering is how exactly would you go about presenting an ID class?
I'm at a loss at what possible teaching format they have in mind.

I have often thought about that. I would wonder what exactly a teacher would say?

I mean the way I was taught biology in leaving cert is that you start with something a cell does, or something happening, like cell division and you work from there, about how it happens, what purpose it serves in a biological sense (ie a new cell), what is going on, theories about how this effects other things

Where do you start with ID? How does it even come up, without of course someone opening a Bible at page 1?

I mean do they seriously expect a science teacher to get up and say "this is so complex it is possible some intelligence designed it to happen like this" ... if I was there the first quiestion would be "what are you basing that on?" ... it is nonsense

Zombrex

archdukefranz wrote:

Richard Dawkins seems more out for himself and booksales than anything else

Who should he be "out" for?

Zillah

Wicknight wrote:

Who should he be "out" for?

Truth and intellectual justice?

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

Truth and intellectual justice?

Justice?

staple

pH wrote:

Dawkins also does not claim that Darwinism leads to atheism.

Dawkins does claim, all the time, that religion is a dangerous delusion, and religious people should acknowledge that truth. I've heard/read it from him many times. This is a description of his Channel 4 documentaries:
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/rootofevil.html

I've never heard him acknowledge any Christian's right to be deluded. Dawkins is extremely interested in going beyond scientific knowledge of zoology and biology and applying what he knows to society and faith, areas that require very different intellectual tools. He approaches the sensitivities of religious belief with all the subtlety of a bunsen burner.

It's implicit in everything he says that scientific knowledge should make us atheists. That may not be the same as saying "darwinism leads to atheism" but that is a pretty subtle difference (maybe not in scientific journals, but Dawkins doesn't stick to scientific journals).

pH

Dawkins does claim, all the time, that religion is a dangerous delusion, and religious people should acknowledge that truth. I've heard/read it from him many times. This is a description of his Channel 4 documentaries:

Yes, but where is Natural Selection, Evolution or 'Darwinism' mentioned? All of the above is true but has nothing to do with natural selection!

I've never heard him acknowledge any Christian's right to be deluded.

Interesting take, I've never heard him say anywhere that people shouldn't be free to practice a religion. I guess his feelings would be similar enough to mine, practice your dogma at home or in your (self-funded) churches and stay well away from the classroom and public institutions.

It's implicit in everything he says that scientific knowledge should make us atheists.

It's implicit in everything he says that there's absolutely no scientific knowledge that should lead us to believe in Sky Gods.

robindch

> I've never heard him acknowledge any Christian's right to be deluded.

I've never heard him deny the right of any person to believe any piece of religious dogma they like -- christianity being just one example of a number of different religions that he shone the spotlight of reason on during the recent C4 series.

> It's implicit in everything he says that scientific knowledge should make
> us atheists.

Not that I've noticed -- could you provide a quote to back up this claim? Though I would concede (as above), that the ability to deal with the world accurately and honestly which he espouses, would lead one to the mild suspicion that religion is nothing more, and nothing less, than a very complex, very interesting, self-propagating cultural construction.

Playboy

robindch wrote:

I've never heard him deny the right of any person to believe any piece of religious dogma they like -- christianity being just one example of a number of different religions that he shone the spotlight of reason on during the recent C4 series.

The spotlight of reason? The 'root of all evil' was a biased propoganda piece.

robindch

> The 'root of all evil' was a biased propoganda piece.

uhhh, for saying that religion causes many people do do bad things and that it's not based upon much more than tradition and the authority that some people assert over others?

archdukefranz

robindch wrote:

> The 'root of all evil' was a biased propoganda piece.

uhhh, for saying that religion causes many people do do bad things and that it's not based upon much more than tradition and the authority that some people assert over others?

root of all evil is a little stronger than religion causes many people to do bad things
And its very much a unilateral approach surely you'll aggree

Zombrex

staple wrote:

Dawkins does claim, all the time, that religion is a dangerous delusion, and religious people should acknowledge that truth.

You are right about the first bit, wrong about the second bit.

Religion is a dangerous delusion, but Dawkins merely points this out. Its up to the rest of us to make up our minds. He isn't forcing anyone to be atheist, though he thinks we all should be.

Playboy

> uhhh, for saying that religion causes many people do do bad things

uhhh, what about the other side of the coin. How about all the good things that religion causes many people to do.

> it's not based upon much more than tradition and the authority that some people assert over others?

In your opinion, which is obviously a very biased one. As I said before 'The Root of all Evil' is a biased propoganda piece. Any decent series would try and deal with the subject impartially. Dawkins used the show to preach his own worldview which is fine in my book but dont try and pass it off as something its not.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Religion is a dangerous delusion, but Dawkins merely points this out.

Merely points this out? Is Dawkins seriously trying to make people believe that the world would be a better place if we all were atheists?. If I remember correctly it was the Jews who were being persecuted in World War 2. What about communism in Russia and China and all the atroicities that were committed? Is atheism not just as dangerous? Hypocrisy anybody?

pH

If I remember correctly it was the Jews who were being persecuted in World War 2. What about communism in Russia and China and all the atroicities that were committed? Is atheism not just as dangerous? Hypocrisy anybody?

It's hard to argue that much evil has ever been done in the name of 'atheism'. There have been very few (if any) massacres or pogroms done solely by non-religous people against the religous.

Communism is not atheism, and to lay its horrors at atheism's door is disingenuous to say the least.

In the same way as not every massacre performed by a religous person or movement can be attributed to the religion, neither can all acts performed by non-religous people be attributed to atheism.

Just in case you still don't get this - take the Rwandan genocide for example, while it was committed primarily by religous people - it was not 'about' religion, and would not be described as a religous massacre. In the same way religion was just something else that got in the way of Communism, the primary motivation was not that of an atheistic movement persecuting the religious.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Merely points this out? Is Dawkins seriously trying to make people believe that the world would be a better place if we all were atheists?. If I remember correctly it was the Jews who were being persecuted in World War 2. What about communism in Russia and China and all the atroicities that were committed?

What about them? The argument there would be non-democracy dictatorships are dangerous. I'm sure Dawkins would agree with that also.

Atheism doesn't replace moral system of religion. What ever moral system the atheist believes in replaces religion.

The point is that if you remove religion this moral system comes from humanity, and as such it is possible to debate, discuss, argue and hopefully improve the moral system, something that isn't as easy to do when the moral system comes from the word of God, and is as such quite ridgid. Or to put it another way, its easy to argue a person is wrong, its a lot harder to argue God is wrong.

Playboy wrote:

Is atheism not just as dangerous? Hypocrisy anybody?

No because atheism isn't a morality/social/legal system. You will have to give me an example of the moral system you would replace religion with first, then I can tell you if it is just as dangerous. Obviously a communist dictorship ala Stalin or Mao would be equally dangerous.

Playboy

pH wrote:

In the same way as not every massacre performed by a religous person or movement can be attributed to the religion, neither can all acts performed by non-religous people be attributed to atheism.

This was my point. To name a show 'A Root of all Evil' and to preach about the dangers of religion in the way he does is disingenuous. Human history is full of evil and horror. Religion is an excuse not a reason.

pH wrote:

Just in case you still don't get this - take the Rwandan genocide for example, while it was committed primarily by religous people - it was not 'about' religion, and would not be described as a religous massacre. In the same way religion was just something else that got in the way of Communism, the primary motivation was not that of an atheistic movement persecuting the religious.

Exactly. So in what instance can you blame any kind of evil solely on religion? Is it all not wrapped up in a social and poltical context along with the individual psychology of the people involved? Is religion the root cause of the problems in Northern Ireland or does it really go much deeper than that? Can the same not be said for any kind of religious conflict in any part of the world?

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

The point is that if you remove religion this moral system comes from humanity, and as such it is possible to debate, discuss, argue and hopefully improve the moral system, something that isn't as easy to do when the moral system comes from the word of God, and is as such quite ridgid. Or to put it another way, its easy to argue a person is wrong, its a lot harder to argue God is wrong.

How do you improve a moral system? Morality is highly subjective. Who is Dawkins to say that his morality is superior to that of any religion?

Wicknight wrote:

No because atheism isn't a morality/social/legal system. You will have to give me an example of the moral system you would replace religion with first, then I can tell you if it is just as dangerous. Obviously a communist dictorship ala Stalin or Mao would be equally dangerous.

So what is the point? Preach atheism but don't try and fill void religion leaves? Leave that to whatever political system we find ourselves living under? How do we arrive at a universal morality that is superior to all others?

Rev Hellfire

pH wrote:

Communism is not atheism, and to lay its horrors at atheism's door is disingenuous to say the least.

While communism isn't atheism, atheism had a strong element within it. So imho it's valid to associate the two.
Just as religious ideals have been used as tool by those who coveted power and have corrupted there teachings to enforce a position. The same is true of state sponsored atheism for example (read communism as the best example). If we hold religion guilty by association of the practises of those who profess to uphold it. Since we aren’t hypocrites we should hold atheism equally guilty for the actions that have been carried out in its name also. For example in many repressive atheist states the religious are persecuted simply for their beliefs whether practiced privately or publicly.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

How do you improve a moral system? Morality is highly subjective. Who is Dawkins to say that his morality is superior to that of any religion?

Er, did you not get the "hard to prove God wrong" point.

That is the fundamental dangerous flaw in morality drawn from religion. Any morality that knows it is draw from only from humanity (which in reality all morality actually is, even religious morality) rather than religion will be prefereable.

Or do you disagree? Do you think sometimes have a moral system that believes it is draw from a divine God and therefore is much harder to challange or argue, is actually a good thing?

Playboy wrote:

So what is the point? Preach atheism but don't try and fill void religion leaves? Leave that to whatever political system we find ourselves living under?

First you are complaining that Dawkins was trying to shove his moral system down your mouth, now you are complaininig he isn't replacing the religious moral system with something else. You are missing the point.

The point of "preaching" atheism isn't to get you to replace your moral system completely, but to realise that your moral system comes from humans, not from a God, and therefore it is possible to argue and improve that system. Itis not set in stone. The silly illogical bits that cause war and suffering can be removed.

Playboy wrote:

How do we arrive at a universal morality that is superior to all others?

Through debate, argument, discussion etc, all of which is limited under religious moral systems.

Something like the UN declaration of human rights, or the US constitution were derived from humanity. No religion was needed.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Since we aren’t hypocrites we should hold atheism equally guilty for the actions that have been carried out in its name also. For example in many repressive atheist states the religious are persecuted simply for their beliefs whether practiced privately or publicly.

Kinda true, but you are comparing two things that aren't really similar. You are ignoring why religion is dangerous and how it justifies evil things. It is not simply that bad things are done by people who happen to be religious. It is that the religion itself is used as the justification for said bad things.

Atheism isn't a religion, its not a belief system. Most religions are a belief system. Religious oppression is normally justified by one of those beliefs (eg town A doesn't believe that prophet B really spoke to God, lets kill them).

Atheism is different. It doesn't say anything about morality, or provide a belief structure. It doesn't tell you how you should feel about or towards anything. Therefore it can't really be used to justify anything, good or bad.

So saying, I'm going to burn down that chuch because I'm an atheist doesn't make sense. Saying I'm going to burn down the church because I hate the religion. The two are different.

The oppression of religion in Communist countries was because the Communists didn't like religion, not because they were atheists. They believed religion was an threat to their power and the power of the state. They were atheists because they didn't like religion, but the two didn't replace each other.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Er, did you not get the "hard to prove God wrong" point.

That is the fundamental dangerous flaw in morality drawn from religion. Any morality that knows it is draw from only from humanity (which in reality all morality actually is, even religious morality) rather than religion will be prefereable.

Or do you disagree? Do you think sometimes have a moral system that believes it is draw from a divine God and therefore is much harder to challange or argue, is actually a good thing?

What I am saying is that is highly arrogant of us to assume moral superiority over anybody. People are as entitled to take their morals from a religious book as they are from any other book. For thousands of years religion has been the main influence on our morality and just becuase some of us have changed our perspective in recent times doesnt mean we have to expect the rest of the world to change with us. Would you complain that Mother Teresa was an immoral person or that religion had influenced her morality negatively or that richard Dawkins' is morally superior to her?

Wicknight wrote:

First you are complaining that Dawkins was trying to shove his moral system down your mouth, now you are complaininig he isn't replacing the religious moral system with something else. You are missing the point.

The point of "preaching" atheism isn't to get you to replace your moral system completely, but to realise that your moral system comes from humans, not from a God, and therefore it is possible to argue and improve that system. Itis not set in stone. The silly illogical bits that cause war and suffering can be removed.

That morality comes from humans and not from God is your opinion. Thats not an opinion shared by a large portion of this planet. How do we know that the moral situation is going to improve without religion. Analytical Philosophers such as John Rawls have spent their lives brilliantly arguing the moral case for egalatarianism but to no avail. Peoples morality you will find is usually based upon their position in society whether they are religious or not. Thats why people like Rawls get nowhere in the U.S. People will protect what they have and the rich are experts are arguing their own moral case. It is naive to think that just becuase you remove religion from the equation that somehow the moral situation is going to improve. The world doesnt work like that.

Wicknight wrote:

Something like the UN declaration of human rights, or the US constitution were derived from humanity. No religion was needed.

Ye becuase the US doesnt have any problems with morality and everybody listens to the UN :rolleyes:

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Atheism isn't a religion, its not a belief system. Most religions are a belief system. Religious oppression is normally justified by one of those beliefs (eg town A doesn't believe that prophet B really spoke to God, lets kill them).

Do you really think that Town B killing Town A has really anything to do with religion? People will always find an excuse to kill each other. If it wasnt religion it would be something else. Try addressing poverty in the world and see how many rich religious people kill each other because of religion

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote:

The oppression of religion in Communist countries was because the Communists didn't like religion, not because they were atheists. They believed religion was an threat to their power and the power of the state. They were atheists because they didn't like religion, but the two didn't replace each other.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Either they are atheists or they aren't. The fact remains it is atheism as sponsored by the state as a means of 'freeing' the masses and removing the support structures that organised religions can provide to counter them.
This is exactly the same in my opinion as say certain Islamic states sponsoring an Islamic education as a means of perpetuating their own influence.

The point I'm trying to make and forgive my rambling thoughts is that atheism like all religions (or non-religion/idea/belief/ call it what you will) can also be misappropriated and made suit a group’s purpose.

Where u say we should kill such and such since they don’t believe in X or Y. The repressive state can also use atheism to do the same; these religious are against you and must be removed for the good of the state. They can even use the very arguments used by atheists of ‘religion as the oppressor’ to remove those who would threaten their own oppression.

But we’re kind of getting off topic a good bit here. It might be worth branching the thread if our very own oppressor (the athirst) wishes the flow of the thread not to be broken.

pH

Back to the original topic (before we got attacked by all the 'atheists are really evil people too' posters) I missed Daniel Dennett's response in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1746188,00.html

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

What I am saying is that is highly arrogant of us to assume moral superiority over anybody.

Is it highly arrogant to state slavery is immoral (in the Bible), rape is immoral (in the Bible), execution is immoral (in the Bible) etc.

It is not arrogance to point out the immorality in some belief systems. That is the whole point, that humanity derived belief systems can be updated improved, where as ones based on religious contexts cannot without defining the religion itself.

Playboy wrote:

People are as entitled to take their morals from a religious book as they are from any other book.

True, and people like Dawkins are entitled to point out the flaw in that morality.

Playboy wrote:

Would you complain that Mother Teresa was an immoral person or that religion had influenced her morality negatively or that richard Dawkins' is morally superior to her?

How can one person be superior to another? What do they have a bareknuckle fight?

One example I would bring up with regard to Teresas woudl be her instruction that her workers baptise dying patients, even without their consent. Often this was done to Muslims or Hindus who did not understand what was happening to them. Naturally this goes against the idea of religous freedom and respecting beliefs. This would be an example of a religious belief system over stepping the mark, but arguing to Teresas that she shouldn't do this was pointless, because she believed this had to be done to save the souls of the dying.

Playboy wrote:

It is naive to think that just becuase you remove religion from the equation that somehow the moral situation is going to improve.

Playboy you are missing the point. Moral situation cannot improve until religion is stripped from legal/cultural morality. Or should we compare the civil liberites in a legally secular country like the US with a legally religious country like Iran?

Playboy wrote:

Ye becuase the US doesnt have any problems with morality and everybody listens to the UN :rolleyes:

Er, what?

The laws that protect people's civil liberties in the US are constantly under attack from religous grousp trying to push their religion on others. The thing that protects them is the US constitution. It protects the preciesely because it is secular in nature.