Dawkins on the Late Late Show

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> Religion may be a side-effect of some other characteristic

This is basically Dawkin's conclusion too. His reasoning is that the evolutionary benefits conferred by religion -- sense of belonging, assuaging of fear etc -- simply can't account for the considerable biological costs of being religious. Hence, there must be another reason and he advocates the "it's a by-product of something else" explanation in The God Delusion (TGD?).

One of these days I must actually read it. I have a rooted prejudice against reading anything that might agree with me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Zillah wrote:

You seem to think that society is a binary phenomenon, that is to say, either existant or not. Surely society is a scale? Every lifeform has interactions with other members of its species. Bacteria make colonies, dogs form packs, and humans make nations. Surely its all the same phenomenon, just with an increasing scale of complexity?

I don't think it, I don't know what I think of the origin of religion, I haven't read a sufficient amount of material to form a meaningful opinion. This is what I believe is a standard opinion in modern anthropology based on what I have read.

The argument isn't dependant on society being binary or not though, only on the fact that religion is quite a complicated and expensive trait to arrive at by evolutionary means. It is quite possibly a meme that spread like wild fire since it was thought up, rather than some other slowly improving societal trait that eventually became religion.

Also something like religion would more than likely require theory of the mind, so the kind of society required to support it is probably fairly binary (you either have it or you don't), even though societies in general are continuous.

Son Goku

DaveMcG wrote:

Lads we wanna keep this centered around Mr Dawkins, his role in Atheism, whether he's helping or hindering it, how he's performing in debates and so on... Ye'r discussion would probably warrant another thread if ye're interested!

Yeah, sorry. I always do that.

Dave!

Son Goku wrote:

Yeah, sorry. I always do that.

So do I but this is my thread so I have a vested interest in keeping it clean! (I'm sure that could be worded better......)

robindch

> [Zillah] Uh, I don't think so. He seems to be saying religion is a relatively
> useless (evolutionarily) trait that has piggy backed on other things.

Religion isn't an evolutionary trait (not sure what you mean by this), but it does appear to have origins explicable by natural selection. In terms of the theory of mind, here's how the explanation works:

As conscious entities, animals (including ourselves) must make choices about what's safe and not safe to do, particularly in situations where life itself is at risk. There are three broad classes of situations in which one needs to make a choice between different courses of action:

1. Physical stance: when one is faced with a choice deriving from basic physics. ie, do I step over this cliff/walk into this wall or not?

2. Design stance: when one can't make a rapid choice from (1), the animal looks at the design of the system requiring the choice. ie, is it safe for me to walk on his branch (given that it's thin)/is it good to eat this mushroom (given that it's bright red and smelly)?

3. Intentional stance: (more or less what's referred to above as the theory of mind) when dealing with other conscious entities. ie, should I buy this baboon a drink in the hope of having a night of passion beneath the stars?

Choices for (1) and (2) are typically made very quickly, but choices relating to intention are not. In fact, it's fair to say that intensely political things like primates seem to spend a lot of time obsessing about the intentions of other primates. In political species, organisms which are better able to infer intentionality correctly will outbreed those who are less able to do it (ie, those who are able to answer questions like "Are my chances better with this baboon or that baboon?" more accurately).

The 'theory of mind' explanation of religion basically says that this ability to infer intentionality misfires in religious people and intentionality is imputed where it is does not exist -- ie, should I avoid this mushroom (because it's smelly, it doesn't like me, so I'll avoid it). Hence the common religious notion that the woods, stones, trees etc, are all said to have intentions or guiding spirits. In the terms of modern christianity, that 'god' (or intention) is everywhere, or that satan causes disease, or (weirdly) that naked facts have political biases -- views which we've seen expressed in the christianity forum.

In terms of precedence, physical generally overrides design, which generally overrides intention -- this is because physical misfirings may be fatal, while intentional ones rarely are. This means that over evolutionary time, intentional misfirings are more likely to be tolerated than physical or design ones.

This explanation is simpler than the group-identity notion of religion, which, as Dawkins says, simply doesn't appear to be strong enough to explain the enormous biological cost of religious belief (ie, ten percent of salary, so many hours per week, fancy clothes, expensive buildings, parasitic sociology etc, etc).

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> [Zillah] Uh, I don't think so. He seems to be saying religion is a relatively
> useless (evolutionarily) trait that has piggy backed on other things.

Religion isn't an evolutionary trait (not sure what you mean by this), but it does appear to have origins explicable by natural selection. In terms of the theory of mind, here's how the explanation works:

As conscious entities, animals (including ourselves) must make choices about what's safe and not safe to do, particularly in situations where life itself is at risk. There are three broad classes of situations in which one needs to make a choice between different courses of action:

1. Physical stance: when one is faced with a choice deriving from basic physics. ie, do I step over this cliff/walk into this wall or not?

2. Design stance: when one can't make a rapid choice from (1), the animal looks at the design of the system requiring the choice. ie, is it safe for me to walk on his branch (given that it's thin)/is it good to eat this mushroom (given that it's bright red and smelly)?

3. Intentional stance: (more or less what's referred to above as the theory of mind) when dealing with other conscious entities. ie, should I buy this baboon a drink in the hope of having a night of passion beneath the stars?

Choices for (1) and (2) are typically made very quickly, but choices relating to intention are not. In fact, it's fair to say that intensely political things like primates seem to spend a lot of time obsessing about the intentions of other primates. In political species, organisms which are better able to infer intentionality correctly will outbreed those who are less able to do it (ie, those who are able to answer questions like "Are my chances better with this baboon or that baboon?" more accurately).

The 'theory of mind' explanation of religion basically says that this ability to infer intentionality misfires in religious people and intentionality is imputed where it is does not exist -- ie, should I avoid this mushroom (because it's smelly, it doesn't like me, so I'll avoid it). Hence the common religious notion that the woods, stones, trees etc, are all said to have intentions or guiding spirits. In the terms of modern christianity, that 'god' (or intention) is everywhere, or that satan causes disease, or (weirdly) that naked facts have political biases -- views which we've seen expressed in the christianity forum.

In terms of precedence, physical generally overrides design, which generally overrides intention -- this is because physical misfirings may be fatal, while intentional ones rarely are. This means that over evolutionary time, intentional misfirings are more likely to be tolerated than physical or design ones.

This explanation is simpler than the group-identity notion of religion, which, as Dawkins says, simply doesn't appear to be strong enough to explain the enormous biological cost of religious belief (ie, ten percent of salary, so many hours per week, fancy clothes, expensive buildings, parasitic sociology etc, etc).

We have also seen that many of our posters apparently find it impossible to imagine action without agency. If you examine the phrase "creation implies a Creator", you'll see that it is meaningless without that particular trait.

There is also the positive human trait of looking for patterns rather than simply recording data - which also predisposes us to see patterns where there are none. The very human cry of "why me?" implicitly assumes there is some reason for misfortune (as opposed to a mere stochastic outcome) - and it is often combined with the "no action without agency" rule to produce diabolic machinations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

elaine93

i was dissapointed at how the answers they gave as to whether god existed or not were so basic.yes and no.everything the atheist said had to have scientific evidence.everything the religious man said involved needing to feel something.could the answer possibly be both?could it be that the only way for a god to exist is if you believe it does,and even then it only exists to you,but nonetheless does exist.or if you believe it does not exist then it does not,but only to you.its both.there is no one truth.there is one for every single person.

Zillah

Sure Elaine, maybe. But we have no way of knowing that. Or testing it. Or using it. Or doing anything at all with it except saying "I suppose it could be". In that sense it doesn't answer any questions at all.

Now if everyone, especially the fanatically religious, could subsribe to that view I'm sure it'd be a nicer world, but it wouldn't neccessarily be true.

aidan24326

elaine93 wrote:

i was dissapointed at how the answers they gave as to whether god existed or not were so basic.yes and no.everything the atheist said had to have scientific evidence.everything the religious man said involved needing to feel something.could the answer possibly be both?

Not exactly. Just because a person feels that something is true doesn't make it so. At least not outside of that person's own mind. This is a problem with some people who hold religious beliefs, especially those who claim to have had some great awakening that led them to god.

Whatever it was that happened to them is a highly subjective personal experience that no-one else can really know or understand. But there are other possible (and way more plausable) explanations for these religious 'revelations' that do not require a supernatural god. In other words, it's impossible to know whether the person is just making it up, or if their mind is simply playing tricks on them.

One girl in the late late audience said how religion had really helped her through a bad time, and good for her. But she was pretty much implying that this offered some sort of evidence for god. How it could is beyond me. Again this is explainable by natural phenomena of human psychology. Sugesting that it offers evidence of god is just a leap way too far.

could it be that the only way for a god to exist is if you believe it does,and even then it only exists to you,but nonetheless does exist.or if you believe it does not exist then it does not,but only to you.its both.there is no one truth.there is one for every single person.

In effect you'd be saying a god only exists if you think it into existence. Or that we could actually think things in and out of existence. Surely an entity like a supernatural god creator ought to be well above this? Your idea is actually kind of interesting but wildly speculative to say the least.

Dave!

aidan24326 wrote:

One girl in the late late audience said how religion had really helped her through a bad time, and good for her. But she was pretty much implying that this offered some sort of evidence for god. How it could is beyond me. Again this is explainable by natural phenomena of human psychology. Sugesting that it offers evidence of god is just a leap way too far.

Ugh, that girl, as someone mentioned earlier, made me cringe...

"*Dawkins is rationalising with her, when she buts in*--But it's a miracle!!! :eek:"

*shudder*

Schuhart

DaveMcG wrote:

"*Dawkins is rationalising with her, when she buts in*--But it's a miracle!!!

I think the problem is his response in that situation was too much like ‘But you are meant to be unhappy, you stupid woman. It’s scientific.’

A better response is to acknowledge the reality of someone’s personal experience, and perhaps introduce the idea that the person is using religion as a technique to achieve something good – but that good might be achieved in other ways.

The problem, as I see it, is addressing the question ‘what are the other ways’. That woman can be clear if she adopts a religion its got a book and beliefs and practices and stuff to do at different times of the year and probably regular shindigs with like minded folk. If that’s what worked in her personal situation, and what she wants to know is what atheism offers as a replacement for all that, I’m not clear on what Dawkins is saying.

aidan24326

DaveMCG wrote:

Ugh, that girl, as someone mentioned earlier, made me cringe...

"*Dawkins is rationalising with her, when she buts in*--But it's a miracle!!! "

*shudder*

That's part of the problem for someone like Dawkins, or anyone who tries to have that kind of rational argument with the likes of her. You make a clear logical argument only to be met with that sort of response, god did it, it's a miracle etc. It's almost a waste of time. A person like that doesn't even get rationality. Some of the fundies in the US probably never even heard of the word. It's head against wall stuff.

Schuhart wrote:

I think the problem is his response in that situation was too much like ‘But you are meant to be unhappy, you stupid woman. It’s scientific.’

A better response is to acknowledge the reality of someone’s personal experience, and perhaps introduce the idea that the person is using religion as a technique to achieve something good – but that good might be achieved in other ways.

The problem, as I see it, is addressing the question ‘what are the other ways’. That woman can be clear if she adopts a religion its got a book and beliefs and practices and stuff to do at different times of the year and probably regular shindigs with like minded folk. If that’s what worked in her personal situation, and what she wants to know is what atheism offers as a replacement for all that, I’m not clear on what Dawkins is saying.

Fair point. It's difficult to know how people would replace that 'spiritual' feeling they get from their religion. Dawkins would probably say that people should see the wonder in the world as it is, and deal with their existence in this life, without having to invent fantasies of gods and the afterlife. This is not enough for some.

What one could offer them as an alternative I don't know. Nothing much I suppose. People need to feel like there is something else, some higher meaning, some purpose, but don't stop to realise that these are just human aspirations and that this big cold universe doesn't care a whole lot what you feel. For all we know that's the truth of it, and it's easy to see how people conjur up all sorts of myths and miracles to avoid what is a somewhat disconcerting reality for us all, atheist and fundie alike.

Dades

Schuhart wrote:

If that’s what worked in her personal situation, and what she wants to know is what atheism offers as a replacement for all that, I’m not clear on what Dawkins is saying.

The problem for Dawkins is that the only response he can give is that just because religion helps you, doesn't make it real. And of course he has nothing to offer in replacement as a sweetener to the person who "uses" religion. One could argue that people like that need hope, not intellectual honesty.

aidan24326

The Atheist wrote:

The problem for Dawkins is that the only response he can give is that just because religion helps you, doesn't make it real. And of course he has nothing to offer in replacement as a sweetener to the person who "uses" religion. One could argue that people like that need hope, not intellectual honesty.

True, which I guess is why non-believers like you or I don't set out to shatter any illusions for people who really need that hope. We're not going to approach the praying cancer patient in her hospital bed and say 'sorry love, but there is no god you know, and nothing but oblivion when you die'.

But this is an exceptional circumstance. When someone is in real need of hope you let them find it wherever they can.

At the same time when someone starts praying to god to cure them rather than take their medication, that's when you've got a problem. That is very much part of the 'unharmless' side to religion, and why Dawkins is quite right to point out that even though religion may have some benefits in limited situations, irrationality and superstition is on the whole useless at best and dangerous and even malevolent at worst. So the limited benefits still don't justify the whole thing.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

The problem for Dawkins is that the only response he can give is that just because religion helps you, doesn't make it real. And of course he has nothing to offer in replacement as a sweetener to the person who "uses" religion. One could argue that people like that need hope, not intellectual honesty.

TBH it reminds me of arguing with a Creationist.

If the person is not in the right frame of mind to be looking for scientific or truthful answers any you give will seem unsatisfactory and will be ignored. Some people just want to believe in this stuff, for what ever reason, and therefore anything that casts doubt on it will be ignored. Logic or evidence won't convince them and they will just end up getting more and more annoyed.

I personally think the argument or debate should not really be about evidence for this, evidence for that. A more important debate is if you are open to the ideas that atheism presents. But with this it is difficult to argue that point without seeming to be attacking the individual or acting in an arrogant superior manner that most theists view atheists.

One of the first things I think an atheists realises is that just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is. While that can seem like common sense it can actually be quite confusing and daunting for someone who is used to thinking, even a little bit, like that. A few people have already posted on this forum and others that they cannot imagine a world where something isn't behind this, or looking out for them. Others have posted that they cannot accept that some event or accident did not have a purpose.

And therefore you could chuck all evidence and logic at them and they will simply brush it aside and keep on looking for "signs" for things they want to believe in.

aidan24326

Wicknight wrote:

If the person is not in the right frame of mind to be looking for scientific or truthful answers any you give will seem unsatisfactory and will be ignored. Some people just want to believe in this stuff, for what ever reason, and therefore anything that casts doubt on it will be ignored. Logic or evidence won't convince them and they will just end up getting more and more annoyed.

That's it excactly. Like I was saying earlier about the girl in the LLS audience who made the 'it's a miracle' comment. For some people like her, you could flash the logic and the evidence before their eyes with a great big neon sign, and it still wouldn't register. Dawkins himself realises that most people like that are unlikely to be swayed.

One of the first things I think an atheists realises is that just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is. While that can seem like common sense it can actually be quite confusing and daunting for someone who is used to thinking, even a little bit, like that. A few people have already posted on this forum and others that they cannot imagine a world where something isn't behind this, or looking out for them. Others have posted that they cannot accept that some event or accident did not have a purpose.

But didn't we all think like that once upon a time? Why is that some people can move away from that way of thinking while others don't? I have no doubt that some religious people do actually doubt their beliefs just a little, or certainly more than they would care to admit. These people have probably had some exposure to the counter-arguments and may have had big seeds of doubt sown in their mind, but are so attached to the beliefs they hold dear that they just can't let go. Still not really a good enough excuse. Those people are cowards, at least the hardcore fundamentalist loon actually believes he's right.

r3nu4l

I think part of Dawkins problem is that he's a very good author, has time to think out his points and lay them out clearly and logically but perhaps isn't the best at thinking on his feet in a more dynamic and challenging environment.

Another problem might be that he is probably bored with his role as the face of modern atheism and may even be tired of re-iterating the same points over and over again to audiences worldwide?

Also, many people who are labelled as intellectuals often have the problem of not being able to relate to people on a level below which they are used to thinking and therefore do not handle certain styles of debate very well, maybe this is another part of the problem?

As I'm a believer I should probably be saying that his poor performance is influenced by "God the Almighty thwarting the heathen unbeliever"...but even I accept that that would be pushing it a bit far

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

One of the first things I think an atheists realises is that just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is.

That's true, but I think we have a tendancy to get stuck in that groove. Looking through the other end of the telescope, just because something is untrue doesn't take away the desire to believe in it.

I'm taking it as read that the basis of religion is not credibility of the belief. 'Comfort' is at once too vague and dismissive. I'm still not sure where this leads us, other than a vague intuition that there is some focus out there that discussion needs to start moving towards.

Wicknight wrote:

And therefore you could chuck all evidence and logic at them and they will simply brush it aside and keep on looking for "signs" for things they want to believe in.

Indeed, that is a reality that has to be faced. In a slightly different but related context, I was watching a lecture by Ken Miller debunking Intelligent Design. Towards the end, when he takes questions from the audience, one questioner expressed shock at discovering a particular scientist she knew was campaigning for ID and asked Ken Miller could he account for what would motivate a reputable scientist to do that. I thought his answer was interesting.

He speculated (essentially) that if someone believes that a godless society would eat itself, and they feel that evolution undermines religion, then they'll back ID even if they think evolution is correct and religion is false. I'm not saying the same point transfers directly into theism in general, but I think there is a relevance.

For example, some young European Muslims would say they hold to their faith as they see it as expressing a positive liberating philosophy which they find preferable to Western consumerism. Hence, the idea of whether God sent an Angel recite a book to Mohammed is not particularly important in this context. Believing that proposition is just a corollary to embracing that alternative philosophy.

Logic dictates our approach. We assume the starting point is to prove/disprove God, and once we've done that everything else falls. But, ironically, belief in God seems to be a consequence of adopting a religion rather than a cause.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

As far as I can see, then, the chances of us being the only life-bearing planet in the Universe are exactly the same as the above - one in 343 quintillion.

You can safely say, then, that the chances of Earth being the only life-bearing planet in the Universe are literally astronomically low, unless of course Special Creation is correct.

I’ve now read TGD. I just wanted to confirm that Dawkins does make it very clear in the context that it is not possible to make any meaningful assessment of how many inhabited planets there are in the Universe. He’s actually using this as an example of a topic that someone can only be agnostic about. He says all we can do is make some kind of estimate of whether is more or less likely that Earth is the only inhabited planet, and uses reasoning along the same lines as Scofflaw above to point out that the crude probability of Earth being unique is low.

In general, I enjoyed the God Delusion as an entertaining presentation of ideas I have a lot of sympathy for, but felt that where the book engaged in wishful thinking on a few points. I think towards the end he did successfully come to terms with the prospect that people don’t belief in God so much as ‘believe in belief’, i.e. they think religion is a damn good thing and hence the credibility of a God concept is not the central issue.

If people ‘believe in belief’, it’s probably for a reason. I’ve also recently read Kate Loewenthal’s ‘Psychology of Religion: A short introduction’. I should say that I’m not a psychologist and I just happened on this book in my local library. I’m not suggesting it’s authoritative – as the title suggests, it’s just an introduction. I’m simply presenting it as a work that attempts to make an objective assessment of this topic, by a theist psychologist. Simplifying, an amount of the material in the book suggests that many people find religious belief, on balance, aids mental health.

To pick a point of detail, Ms Loewenthal at one point cites a study as suggesting that many American women who convert to Islam do so because they want to embrace a traditional female role. If a person wants to spend their days in a kitchen smelling of fresh baking, then swallowing the idea that God sent an Angel with a book is hardly going to hold them back – particularly if it gives them a moral basis for embracing such a lifestyle.

I was left at the end with the same kind of thoughts I've had all along (the usual problem in religious debate?) Borrowing the kind of evolutionary language used in TGD, surely us atheists are the mutation, not theists. We have not been a successful mutation. We’ve been around since biblical times – otherwise why that famous line ‘the fool says in his heart there is no god’ or the bits of the Koran exhorting the faithful to avoid/ignore doubts. There is a need to objectively ask why we fail to make more of an impact, and why the response by at least some to exposure to our outlook is to retreat into fundamentalist fantasy.

Lou.m

I believe people need to be careful as regards what they believe atheism to be it can develop into something quite like religion.
One of the most famous Atheist communities was the Jacobeans they became more or less a cult and commited gross mass murders. And were known for their weird extremist views.

Atheism is a perfectly acceptable view to have but to turn it into a religion itself is quite possible. This guy in my opinion turns secularism into something extreme and has such dogmatic views that he is a preacher of the worst kind.
His arguments are in my opinion quite weak he is certainly no philosopher which is funny because that is one of the complaints i have regarding theologians they are terrible philososphers too and have really no idea of how present an argument logically.

There are many religions that are athesist Buddhism for example.
And there are many atheist communities who have gone in for weird ceremonies and brutish regimes such as the pythagoreans.
It would be a shame if Dawkins did come to represent atheism in peoples minds.
There are many wonderful arguments for athesism and much more enlightened faces of it too it is a pity that this man's poor arguments are seen as the face of atheism.
I did not see the piece but i can imagine the type of cranks might have given their views which is a poor reflection of us as a society but Dawkins is really a bit of a crank too in my opinion.
It is a pity that such debates tend to become so antagonistic.
I believe when you try to convert people to something is really when it becomes a religion

Dades

Dawkins is not everybodys cup of tea. But he does seem to have become the "face of atheism" thanks to his multiple public appearances. Whether this sits well with atheists in general is up for debate. It's out of their hands anyhow.

Ah, Carl Sagan you are missed.

Dave!

The Atheist wrote:

Dawkins is not everybodys cup of tea. But he does seem to have become the "face of atheism" thanks to his multiple public appearances. Whether this sits well with atheists in general is up for debate. It's out of their hands anyhow.

Ah, Carl Sagan you are missed.

Exactly, that's been my point from the start -- cheers!

Zombrex

Is Dawkins that extreme though? What do people mean by that?

Or is he just saying "no, that is nonsense". Sometimes I wonder is it more that he is saying "no, that is nonsense" over religion rather than something else that gets peoples backs up. Its like 4000 years of religion in Europe makes it uncomfortable to say this.

If Dawkins had published his book on UFO sightings and how much nonsense is in them and how implausible the idea of little green men abducting cows from Utah is, would he be called an "extreme" anti-UFO preacher, or have people saying he is turning being anti-UFO into a religion.

Dawkins I would imagine wonders what all the fuss is about, and I doubt he would call himself extreme.

Zillah

My trouble with Dawkins is that he's not nearly manipulative enough. He lacks the Machiavellian habits of his religious counter parts.

Clearly Dawkins' goal to to make more Atheists, and I suppose ideally to do away with religion altogether, but he seems to think that bluntly stating that they are in error will achieve that.

He needs to get down and dirty to convince the sort of people he thinks he's targetting, and I know other academics think he's already fallen low by writing books for general consumption, but he hasn't gone nearly low enough if he's to convince the average person.

He needs to organise a psychological replacement for the rituals of religion, he needs to provide a clear moral guideline, a text, he needs to appeal to ridicule and practical criticisms, not high brow philosophy, because quite frankly the average person isn't smart or independent enough to do it on their own.

That is, if he wants to make real progress.

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

Dawkins is not everybodys cup of tea.

Must admit I am not a great fan of Dawkins, and he is not for me the face of atheism. I put greater store in Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman.

The_Minister

Wicknight wrote:

Is Dawkins that extreme though? What do people mean by that?

He has said that teaching your children to believe in God is child abuse. And that's just the start.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Is Dawkins that extreme though? What do people mean by that?

Or is he just saying "no, that is nonsense". Sometimes I wonder is it more that he is saying "no, that is nonsense" over religion rather than something else that gets peoples backs up. Its like 4000 years of religion in Europe makes it uncomfortable to say this.

I'm not sure extreme is quite the right word. "Simplistic" is closer, I think. He attacks all "belief", from "blow-up-and-go-to-heaven-for-killing-infidels" extremism to "Christ-was-a-nice-bloke" parlour theism, as if they were one and the same thing - an assumption for which there is no proof whatever except the religious assertion that this is so.

I don't know whether this represents a chosen position (I doubt it), or more likely, represents his actual understanding of belief. The latter hardly qualifies him to argue with any theists, let alone be acceptable as the "public face" of atheism.

I'd go along with Steven Rose:

The biologist Steven Rose considers that: “Richard’s view about belief is too simplistic, and so hostile that as a committed secularist myself I am uneasy about it. We need to recognise that our own science also depends on certain assumptions about the way the world is – assumptions that he and I of course share.

Wicknight wrote:

If Dawkins had published his book on UFO sightings and how much nonsense is in them and how implausible the idea of little green men abducting cows from Utah is, would he be called an "extreme" anti-UFO preacher, or have people saying he is turning being anti-UFO into a religion.

Dawkins I would imagine wonders what all the fuss is about, and I doubt he would call himself extreme.

I doubt he would - but then what extremist does?

Like all extremists, I suspect Dawkins alienates more than he impresses. The vast majority of believers, certainly here in the West, are wishy-washy "Christmas Christians", most of whom would have little understanding of, or interest in, the details of their supposed faith. Dawkins, by castigating this mass of semi-believers, would move most of them to a defensive position. He may "pluck a few brands from the burning", but that is not an exercise of any great utility to his fellow atheists - better to erode the faith of the many than bolster it.

Overall, then, I would say that Dawkins can hardly escape the charge of extremism - he sets forth his own case in the most uncompromising terms, describes the entirety of religious belief in terms appropriate only to a few extremists, denounces those less extreme as wishy-washy, is baffled by anyone scientifically trained who is not an atheist, proclaims that the truths of science are the only truths....if I were describing a Christian, we would have no doubt about his extremism - that he is "on our side" should not blind us to it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not sure extreme is quite the right word. "Simplistic" is closer, I think. He attacks all "belief", from "blow-up-and-go-to-heaven-for-killing-infidels" extremism to "Christ-was-a-nice-bloke" parlour theism, as if they were one and the same thing - an assumption for which there is no proof whatever except the religious assertion that this is so.

Dawkins is very clear on that issue. He has stated that while the vast majority of religion has nothing to do with "explodo-jihadists", he believes that religious faith creates an environment in which such extreme fanaticism can arise, and hence, if you remove all faith, there are no suicide bombings.

So while he doesn't condemn "Christ-was-a-nice-bloke" parlour theism in the same fashion he would Fundamentalist Islam, he does attack it for encouraging a form of thinking that makes such behaviour possible.

.if I were describing a Christian, we would have no doubt about his extremism - that he is "on our side" should not blind us to it.

Surely you see the difference between intense conviction based on ancient stories and intense conviction based on a sceptical/scientific attiude? His convictions are based on evidence, whereas the religious person's are not.

Zillah

The_Minister wrote:

He has said that teaching your children to believe in God is child abuse. And that's just the start.

It sounds rather sensational, but outside the context of "child abuse" as a term for sexual or physical abuse, it makes perfect sense. By labelling a child as a member of a particular religion, and instilling in him a strong belief before he has the capacity to decide on such issues himself, you take away from him the right to choose and set up a broken mind set that will drastically alter the rest of his life.

If I encounter an otherwise intelligent and sceptical Christian who condemns fags for their evil ways, I genuinely feel that that person's parents have done something terrible to them. Perhaps the word "abuse" carries specific connotations in modern culture, but I feel its applicable. Personally, were I in Dawkin's position, I wouldn't use the word primarily because I know others wouldn't interpret it the way I meant it. Like I said above, Dawkin's needs to learn to work people better if he's going to sway anyone.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Dawkins is very clear on that issue. He has stated that while the vast majority of religion has nothing to do with "explodo-jihadists", he believes that religious faith creates an environment in which such extreme fanaticism can arise, and hence, if you remove all faith, there are no suicide bombings.

So while he doesn't condemn "Christ-was-a-nice-bloke" parlour theism in the same fashion he would Fundamentalist Islam, he does attack it for encouraging a form of thinking that makes such behaviour possible.

...because it's all part of the same disease.

Zillah wrote:

Surely you see the difference between intense conviction based on ancient stories and intense conviction based on a sceptical/scientific attiude? His convictions are based on evidence, whereas the religious person's are not.

Whether one is correct or not is not a determinant of whether one is an extremist. If Dawkins were campaigning the same way for better personal hygeine rather than atheism, he would still be an extremist.

cordially,
Scofflaw