I included specific quotes from Dawkins to back up my characterizations. You have not included quotes to support your claim that I've mischaracterized him.
I did not argue that his arguments were "harmful" - just flawed.
You can be "snarly" on principle, but I'm not sure how principled snarliness contributes anything to chats about stuff like this. This reminds me of the Dan Peterson strategy on an MD thread I participated in last year: drop in, make a couple of stupid snarly comments, offer nothing of substance, and then vanish. What gives?
I don't have "D List" celebrity status - I have no celebrity status at the moment. I'm posting as a human being. You seem hung up on this non-issue. Why don't you forget it? It makes you look silly.
Tal
I agree with what Dawkins says concerning Memes. Your characterization of his "home remedy" language borders on ludicrously spouted attack and as a whole does not offer anything other than empty rebuttals.
i am just standing up for what I see as an attack on very good ideas, you know, memes that survive and now have "infected" your brain.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Tal Bachman wrote:By the way, Schmo, I very much doubt that Richard Dawkins has "de-converted" any appreciable number of religious believers. I cannot imagine, as a former religious believer myself, EVER feeling anything but put-off by "The God Delusion", and I cannot imagine any devout believers having much of a different reaction.
Well then what is it? From where is all this crap you're writing about him coming?
Seriously, you attacking him for his thoughts in areas which may be out of his area of expertise is pure hypocrisy on your part, given the wide range of topics you try to tackle as though you're an authority (and not ever a 100th as well as he does). Is this your unconscious way of telling us we should dismiss your thoughts too?
Or maybe you just like to be contentious for contentiousness's sake. It's not enough to just piss off religious types; you have to go for the atheists too? That I could understand. The only problem is that the way you're doing it makes you sound idiotic in the process. Maybe you don't care about that either... also understandable.
Mildly curious, that's all.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Well then what is it? From where is all this crap you're writing about him coming?
---From Lucifer. I am but his pawn.
What do you mean, "where is it coming from"? I think Richard Dawkins has no clue as to what religious belief is like or ultimately, where it comes from. There is nothing in "The God Delusion" about religion as remotely as profound as there was in Thomas Hobbes's "Leviathan" four hundred years ago. That the source of religious belief might be deep and primal and innate to the human brain seems unfathomable to Dawkins. For him, a nifty little top-down meme theory is all we need to understand religiosity. I don't think so. Wipe out every last religious belief right now, clear every last mind of its "religious mind viruses" and let everyone forget that there ever was such thing as religion, and within a few months, we'd start seeing religions pop right back up again.
Seriously, you attacking him for his thoughts in areas which may be out of his area of expertise is pure hypocrisy on your part, given the wide range of topics you try to tackle as though you're an authority (and not ever a 100th as well as he does). Is this your unconscious way of telling us we should dismiss your thoughts too?
---I didn't attack him for his "thoughts in areas which may be out of his area of expertise", i.e., for "straying". I attacked his arguments because I think they are wrong. Though you don't seem to have noticed, there is a big difference.
Or maybe you just like to be contentious for contentiousness's sake. It's not enough to just piss off religious types; you have to go for the atheists too? That I could understand. The only problem is that the way you're doing it makes you sound idiotic in the process.
---If there is something idiotic in this thread's original post, then show it. But I haven't seen you do that yet.
The source of your upset seems to be that I dared to voice my opinion that some self-styled expert on religion is full of sh*t. And he is full of sh*t, by my lights. No one needs a PhD in zoology to have that opinion, nor to be correct. Just like Dawkins doesn't need to have a PhD in Religious Studies to be right on religion. And if I thought he were right, I'd say so. But I don't think he is. What's the big deal?
Well then what is it? From where is all this crap you're writing about him coming?
---From Lucifer. I am but his pawn.
What do you mean, "where is it coming from"? I think Richard Dawkins has no clue as to what religious belief is like or ultimately, where it comes from. There is nothing in "The God Delusion" about religion as remotely as profound as there was in Thomas Hobbes's "Leviathan" four hundred years ago. That the source of religious belief might be deep and primal and innate to the human brain seems unfathomable to Dawkins. For him, a nifty little top-down meme theory is all we need to understand religiosity. I don't think so. Wipe out every last religious belief right now, clear every last mind of its "religious mind viruses" and let everyone forget that there ever was such thing as religion, and within a few months, we'd start seeing religions pop right back up again.
Seriously, you attacking him for his thoughts in areas which may be out of his area of expertise is pure hypocrisy on your part, given the wide range of topics you try to tackle as though you're an authority (and not ever a 100th as well as he does). Is this your unconscious way of telling us we should dismiss your thoughts too?
---I didn't attack him for his "thoughts in areas which may be out of his area of expertise", I.e., for "straying". I attacked his arguments because I think they are wrong. Though you don't seem to have noticed, there is a big difference.
Or maybe you just like to be contentious for contentiousness's sake. It's not enough to just piss off religious types; you have to go for the atheists too? That I could understand. The only problem is that the way you're doing it makes you sound idiotic in the process.
---If there is something idiotic in this thread's original post, then show it. But I haven't seen you do that yet.
The source of your upset seems to be that I dared to voice my opinion that some self-styled expert on religion is full of sh*t. And he is full of sh*t, by my lights. No one needs a PhD in zoology to have that opinion, nor to be correct. Just like Dawkins doesn't need to have a PhD in Religious Studies to be right on religion. And if I thought he were right, I'd say so. But I don't think he is. What's the big deal?
I'm not upset about it, just curious. If you think he's wrong, show it. Don't just babble on about how you think it.
Are you not aware that he was raised Christian? What makes your experience more valid than his?
I actually think it's pretty funny that you seem pretentious enough to think you're disputing effectively the thoughts of one of this century's great thinkers. I don't agree with everything he says either, but I have a healthy respect for his intellect, and a healthy respect for the intellect of people who hold him in high regard (colleagues of his), and I wouldn't go around exposing my own ignorance by pretending to know better about things than he does in certain areas that I don't.
All you did was quote a bunch of the things he said, made a few sarcastic remarks and rolled your eyes as though we're all supposed to jump on board and understand what your specific contention was.
And if you actually read the book carefully, you might notice that meme theory was only one of several suggested evolutionary causes of the phenomenon of religion. Do not project your own simplistic understanding of what he's written onto him.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Tal Bachman wrote:Richard Dawkins may be a very talented zoologist. But as a philosopher, historian, psychologist, and political scientist, he fares very poorly. [/color]
says who?
Far Right, absolute truthsayers, established religous Fuhrers?
The Man became a legendary leader of revolutionary movement called Skepticism.
He has every right to be as cynical, realist as He can be!
The World has suffered enough under false, misguided propaganda of the zealots.
The information is out there.
Nobody has to take his or your word.
Actually, I would say that Richard Dawkins is not skeptical enough. In the first few pages of "The God Delusion", in which he admiringly quotes John Lennon's "Imagine" and claims that many of the world's ills would vanish if only religion vanished, reveals him to be just another in a long line of people who imagine themselves to be skeptics, yet are hopelessly credulous about what is possible in human affairs.
There is absolutely no reason to suppose that religiosity can be eradicated from the great majority of human beings, any more than other instincts, like the sexual instinct, could be. There is no reason to suppose that arguments like Dawkins's against God will leave religious believers atheists after exposure to them (as he hopes). There is no reason to believe that an increase in atheism will lead to a reduction in the gravity or sum total of human problems. There is no reason to believe that theist beliefs have an evil-causing power which non-theist beliefs do not, or cannot, have. Dawkins isn't skeptical enough.
My qualifications versus Dawkins's keep coming up on here. I find this strange - everyone on here shoots their mouths off about Mormonism: how many of you have doctorates in religion? I would guess NONE. Do you have a PhD in Religion, Schmo? If not, then follow your own logic, and never speak about religion again.
See how silly the qualification game is on a board like this?
As it happens, Dawkins in "The God Delusion" doesn't spend much time on zoology. Instead, he dwells mostly on things like philosophy, politics, culture, psychology, religion, history. Funny ol' world - the truth is that if academic qualifications really matter on this, I actually might have Dawkins beaten. Dawkins has a BA in zoology, an MA in zoology, and a PhD in zoology. British university curriculum being as focused as it is, I'd be surprised if Dawkins had ever had a single class in most of the topics just mentioned (I have a BA in political science, emphasis political philosophy, started out as a history minor, studied cognitive science at University College London as a grad student last fall and won their departmental scholarship, and, if it means anything, became fully versed in the mindgames that religious believers play on themselves thanks to the numerous classes I took at the LDS Institute at Utah State. I've even created a couple of global "memes" myself).
But for me to say all this is to grant a sort of legitimacy to what you're saying which I'm not sure it deserves. How many classes Dawkins has had in political history, or religious history, or zoology, or whatever, versus me, when we're talking about the nature of religious faith and how it affects society, is I think the wrong thing to focus on here. You keep casting this as "me vs. Richard Dawkins". But I'm just talking about arguments.
About our respective religious experiences: Richard Dawkins's family was Anglican, yes - like most families of his generation and class. And like most other children of his time, he attended Anglican schools. Fortunately for Dawkins, his parents were not particulary devout, and Anglicanism is not exactly the totalitarian freakjob that Mormonism is; in any case, he claims he began to see through the myths at the age of nine. Once he hit his mid-teens, he could see through it all and moved toward atheism. I would be very shocked, in short, if Richard Dawkins has ever been a devout religious believer, like most former Mormons on here.
It's not just his biography which would make me shocked. It is that while Dawkins pleases himself to write all about religious belief, he repeatedly betrays in his writing that he has absolutely no conception of what it is like to be a devout religious believer. He speaks, as it were, an alien language, a language the religious believer could never understand. This is why I said that I very much doubt that "The God Delusion", for the many millions of copies its sold, has really deconverted many people. "The End of Faith" - yes, I can see that. In fact, I know a few people whose faith was pretty much obliterated by that one. "The God Delusion"? Almost unimaginable. It's not a deconversion book at all; it's a big meaty bone to those who already agree with Dawkins.
I don't know that my own religious experience is overall more "valid" - but like many other millions of people on the planet, I do (maybe unfortunately) know what it is like to be a devout religious believer, and Richard Dawkins manifestly doesn't.
You may have a point that my original post was too weak; I could try again. But I'm honestly not sure that anything I say, no matter how correct it may be, will really matter. Once I had a song on the radio, and that's evidently enough to disqualify anything I might say on the topic of religion from serious consideration. Not sure that makes any sense, but that seems to be the way it is.
Tal Bachman wrote:It's not just his biography which would make me shocked. It is that while Dawkins pleases himself to write all about religious belief, he repeatedly betrays in his writing that he has absolutely no conception of what it is like to be a devout religious believer. He speaks, as it were, an alien language, a language the religious believer could never understand. This is why I said that I very much doubt that "The God Delusion", for the many millions of copies its sold, has really deconverted many people. "The End of Faith" - yes, I can see that. In fact, I know a few people whose faith was pretty much obliterated by that one. "The God Delusion"? Almost unimaginable. It's not a deconversion book at all; it's a big meaty bone to those who already agree with Dawkins. [/color]
Tal,
You're wrong. You sound like a bitter kid whose youth was stolen from him and you despise people like Dawkins because they figured out charlatanism in religion way earlier. I spent most of my life in Mormon church, married in Temple, took all the crap they dished with a grain of salt.
Dawkins & his clones give good antidote for people. Unlike popes & prophets they propose reality as it is.
The difference between Dawkins & you is, he did smell the rotten fish, unlike your assertion he had a healthy those of BS detection infused in him.
I'm not saying it is your fault that you didn't discover this charade sooner. It is just the way it is.
"...he has absolutely no conception of what it is like to be a devout religious believer..."
I thought the very same thing while reading his Delusion.
It's not a mortal criticism of him, just an observation.
It reminds me of what I have observed about former devout Mormons. The more they believed in Joseph Smith' gospel and the more committed they were to living it the more hurt they are to find facts that don't square up. Those who never really believed it do not seem to be so soul-sick when they decide to leave. Apologists seem to turn that around and think that if you leave you were never really committed in the first place ("you never had a testimony") when for many former staunch believers it is actually just the opposite.
For a person brought up in any faith whose self or family are "nominal" in their belief and practice it is not at all the same thing as being a devout believer and regular practitioner. I was brought up "Christian" in the nominal sense. Mom was Catholic and Dad was Protestant and neither attended church or taught us "one way" to believe. For me in that instance to become an atheist, say, would not be a startling or hurtful process like it would if I were so dedicated that I had become a nun or something else that had me deeply involved in a certain religious belief.
Billy Graham's buddy, Charles Templeton, who had obviously deeply believed at one stage in his life, was reported to have sobbed at the loss of his friend, Jesus, even though at the time he had decidedly embraced atheism.
I think that is the deep overriding belief of which Tal speaks when he says there is a huge difference between a nominal Christian and a person of devout faith.
I don't see that as a shot against someone but rather a possible explanation of where Dawkins is coming from as opposed to say a formerly 100% dedicated Mormon missionary or a person like Templeton who shared a pulpit with one of the most renowned and successful Protestant preachers of a generation (or two). It is true there is a difference in the life experience there. It is one of the reasons that exmos find solace and satisfaction in discussing issues with fellow exmos. Try talking about your hurt in leaving Mormonism with a Born Again Christian. They are far more likely to say "Wow, you're so lucky you got out. Do you know Jesus...?" whereas a fellow exmo would likely say "I hear ya, bro" and the latter, of course, speaks more to the exmo in regard to the pain and confusion and fright that many feel on leaving and even possibly for a long time on looking back.
I think it is likely a lot easier for a nominal_anything to reflect on religious belief more objectively than is perhaps possible for many current strong believers or former devout followers.
As I say, I thought that about Dawkins too when I read his book. It's not meant as an insult, just an observation. In that way, he is at somewhat of a disadvantage in understanding religious devotees, which is amply evident in some of the remarks he makes (such as "you'll be an atheist by the time you finish this book"). Uuhhhh. Yeah. Not quite. He gives himself a little too much power there.
That is not to say I did not enjoy reading his book. It is thought-provoking, at least.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Solomarineris - you mean I'm wrong that Dawkins has never been a devout religious believer in the way we were? Of course I'm not wrong. Dawkins himself has made the nature of his religious career perfectly plain.
What the hell is up with you guys? You sound a lot like MAD posters defending Dan Peterson ("your hatred the well-respected academic Dr. Peterson is obvious", etc.). I don't hate Richard Dawkins, or resent him personally. I think his opinions on religion and society are foolish, and here and elsewhere (mostly elsewhere) I've explained why. Why don't we stick to that, instead of weird projections of personal animosity?
I have heard Dawkins claim that he has not a religious bone in his body, and that he has never had sympathy for religion. I don't know why people are ascribing to Tal some kind of animus here. On this point--Dawkin's lack of religious experience--Dawkins himself would completely agree.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”