Richard Dawkins On Mormons.

[_EAllusion]

I don't agree with your assessment of Armstrong's position. You are not even scratching the surface here.

I quoted her argument. She wrote an essay explaining what's wrong with the thought of people like Dawkins.

Her argument was, "So-called new atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens have denounced religious belief as not only retrograde but evil; they regard themselves as the vanguard of a campaign to expunge it from human consciousness. Religion, they claim, creates divisions, strife, and warfare; it imprisons women and brainwashes children; its doctrines are primitive, unscientific, and irrational, essentially the preserve of the unsophisticated and gullible.

These writers are wrong -- not only about religion, but also about politics -- because they are wrong about human nature. Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. As soon as we became recognizably human, men and women started to create religions. We are meaning-seeking creatures. While dogs, as far as we know, do not worry about the canine condition or agonize about their mortality, humans fall very easily into despair if we don’t find some significance in our lives. Theological ideas come and go, but the quest for meaning continues. So God isn’t going anywhere. And when we treat religion as something to be derided, dismissed, or destroyed, we risk amplifying its worst faults. Whether we like it or not, God is here to stay, and it’s time we found a way to live with him in a balanced, compassionate manner."

Since in the very same essay the seriously misrepresented what Dawkins et al. think to vanquish strawmen, I'm not sure why one must think she has something more sophisticated in mind. It's not like this is one bad argument surrounded by gold. She said what she said. If you want to mind that essay for something that indicates this is not what she's going for, go for it.

And, for what it is worth, it would be wrong to suggest that heterosexuality is a defining trait of humanity. Homo heroterosexualis, while hilarious, is wrong.

EAllusion, please. Show me where I said this. I challenge you to do so.

You created an analogy to her argument. You called my explanation of the implication of her argument sophistry by saying that it would be like me concluding you think humans who do not reproduce are not human if you said humans reproduce heterosexually.

Let me quote you again:

To me it sounds as though you would say that the statement, "human beings reproduce through heterosexual unions" suggests that those who do not reproduce, who are not heterosexual, or reproduce through the assistance of the laboratory, are somehow not human. This, of course, would be sheer sophistry on your part.

This is a bad analogy. I just plugged it into what Armstrong said, though. She's saying humans are "homo religiosus." It's a cute quip that helps her define human nature as being religious (and therefore belief in God won't go away.) So, to make your analogy stick, you need to say that humans are "homo heterosexualis" because that is their nature. There's actually a better argument there, but you aren't infatuated with it. Doing that would oddly suggest that homosexuality was inhuman too.

I know you didn't read the link, but PZ noticed this too and wrote, "In some ways, I'm always flattered by this argument that we need to define humans as a species by their religious beliefs, because I don't have them…which means I get to claim that I, and my fellow atheists, are a new species. Let us go forth, my fellow Homo smartiepantsius, and take over the hominid niche."

Again, I don't think Armstrong actually thinks this. It's just implied by her suck argument.

[_marg]

Well, a very fundamental issue is how the texts are interpreted. One of Armstrong's key points is that for as long as Christianity has been around, there have been ways of reading these texts that are far more interesting, useful, and safe than the fundamentalist, literalist strategies. I should think that those who are interested in improving religion would be interested in such historical information, if they are really interested in the things you claim.

Trevor here is a link to a discussion between Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett. I'll post only the link for the first hour, I'm sure if you are interested you can find the link for the second hour.

I hope you take the time to listen and get a better appreciation of their views.

And by the way since I have listened to this discussion if there is any thing they say or argue on there that you'd like to criticize I'd be more than willing to discuss. But your accusing them of positions they don't hold, or your accusations of them being them ignorant of history, or theology or whatever else you find fault with, while really knowing very little of what they actually do think is unproductive for discussion purposes. So if you have something of substance, a criticism which you can back up instead of dream up, then I'm interested.

The Four Horsemen

[_Trevor]

I quoted her argument. She wrote an essay explaining what's wrong with the thought of people like Dawkins.

I agree that she is guilty of exaggeration, as is practically everyone in this argument. I take her thought together as a whole, and in doing so see a lot more going for her work than this one piece would let on. Similarly, I understand that Dawkins and the other New Atheists have a lot of value to say, even in their criticisms of religion. What has always bothered me is their limited view of religion. They have little depth on the subject, and while they have much of value to say about the problems of Biblical literalism, Fundamentalism, and the like, they go too far. By claiming, as Harris explicitly does, that the non-literal practitioners of the religious life are guilty of the crime of enabling the Fundamentalists, he reveals an intolerance for religion that is divisive.

These writers are wrong -- not only about religion, but also about politics -- because they are wrong about human nature. Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. As soon as we became recognizably human, men and women started to create religions. We are meaning-seeking creatures. While dogs, as far as we know, do not worry about the canine condition or agonize about their mortality, humans fall very easily into despair if we don’t find some significance in our lives. Theological ideas come and go, but the quest for meaning continues. So God isn’t going anywhere. And when we treat religion as something to be derided, dismissed, or destroyed, we risk amplifying its worst faults. Whether we like it or not, God is here to stay, and it’s time we found a way to live with him in a balanced, compassionate manner."

I see nothing wrong with this argument. In fact, I think there is a lot of virtue in this perspective.

Since in the very same essay the seriously misrepresented what Dawkins et al. think to vanquish strawmen, I'm not sure why one must think she has something more sophisticated in mind. It's not like this is one bad argument surrounded by gold. She said what she said. If you want to mind that essay for something that indicates this is not what she's going for, go for it.

Listen, I think Armstrong has a lot of good things to say. Maybe this particular essay is not the best. I would have to spend more time with it. Right now I am spending time with my kids. Regardless of the quality of this particular essay, I agree with her when she says that the last thing the world needs is another polarizing discourse. This is what brought marg into the fray, and I suppose you too, seeking to point out how Armstrong is wrong about something or other. Fair enough, but I don't really care. I used her in a very limited way, and I stand by my use of that quote. I also find value in her more extended work on the history of faith and atheism.

This is a bad analogy. I just plugged it into what Armstrong said, though. She's saying humans are "homo religiosus." It's a cute quip that helps her define human nature as being religious (and therefore belief in God won't go away.) So, to make your analogy stick, you need to say that humans are "homo heterosexualis" because that is their nature. There's actually a better argument there, but you aren't infatuated with it. Doing that would oddly suggest that homosexuality was inhuman too.

I think you are hung up on the terminology. I was trying to help you see that she is probably only saying that religion is pervasive and ancient, which is absolutely true. Why you have a problem with that is beyond me. She was not implying that atheists are inhuman by saying so. She is observing that the task of ridiculing religion is perhaps a bad strategy. And again, she is probably right.

"In some ways, I'm always flattered by this argument that we need to define humans as a species by their religious beliefs, because I don't have them…which means I get to claim that I, and my fellow atheists, are a new species. Let us go forth, my fellow Homo smartiepantsius, and take over the hominid niche."

Puerile dribble from beginning to end, as well as sophistry. You are following Meyers' lead in overreading Armstrong, and for the disingenuous purpose of suggesting that Armstrong is being intolerant in making a legitimate historical observation. Then, this stupidity is compounded by the usual ego masturbation of saying, "in fact, I am more evolved than you homines religiosi because I don't need that stupid religion crap."

[_Morrissey]

What has always bothered me is their limited view of religion. They have little depth on the subject, and while they have much of value to say about the problems of Biblical literalism, Fundamentalism, and the like, they go too far. By claiming, as Harris explicitly does, that the non-literal practitioners of the religious life are guilty of the crime of enabling the Fundamentalists, he reveals an intolerance for religion that is divisive.

I have no problem with this assertion by Harris. I think he is more or less dead on. Moderates have enabled the fundamentalists via their relative silence and by allowing the fundamentalists to capture public attention, dominate politics, etc. absent any significant, notable counter initiative.

Quick, without resorting to Google, who can name an initiative by moderate Christians or Muslims to counteract the extremism of the fundamentalists?

I completely fail to see how this assertion reveals Harris as intolerant about religion. He in indeed intolerant--of dogmatic, fundamentalist religion . This is clear from his writings. As he should be--as society should be. It, frankly, deserves no tolerance. It is hurtful, divisive, sexist, homophobic, violent, anti-democratic in its general manifestations. We should all be intolerant toward it. Just as we should be intolerant toward all bigotry.

I'm sorry Trevor, while I respect you and your views tremendously, I think that you are wrong on this issue.

[_beastie]

I also fault moderates for failing to "moderate", so to speak, the fundamentalists within their ranks who often pose actual threats to the host society. After all, the fundamentalists certainly aren't going to listen to those completely outside the religious system. It may be that they won't listen to moderates, either, but it does seem to me that moderates are often afraid of standing up to the fundamentalists - and sometimes the fundamentalists are actually admired within the moderate community for being more passionate about the religion.

[_huckelberry]

I have seen the complaint, and had it thrown at me, that Christian moderates do not stop the extremes of fundamentalists. I am Christian and am therefore complicit in extremes which I explicitly reject because I fail to prevent others from thinking differently than I do.

I would like to know what I could do. This is not just an argumentative device. I would actually like to know. True fundamentalist extremists do not view me as a fellow believer but as threat to or perhaps just outside the group of true believers. If moderates and or liberals become the dominate view in a congregation or organization then the true fundamentalists leave to form their own group. They certainly have the right to do this. I am really not in favor of putting them under arrest for nonconformity.

Perhaps just by believing in God I help extremists? No. People can tend to extremes just fine with or without a belief in God. People can believe in dogmas without thought from all sorts of sources. I can imagine no other solution than encouraging thought. However if that strategy is adopted than we have to live with the fact other people come up with different thoughts than ourselves. Some even rather screwy sorts of thoughts.

[_beastie]

Huck,

I'm not talking about the general moderate membership - I'm talking about potentially influential leaders who are moderate taking the fundamentalists to task. I don't know who the leaders are in these communities, but I'm assuming they have some.

[_Trevor]

I have no problem with this assertion by Harris. I think he is more or less dead on. Moderates have enabled the fundamentalists via their relative silence and by allowing the fundamentalists to capture public attention, dominate politics, etc. absent any significant, notable counter initiative.

You have it exactly backwards. Fundamentalists are fundamentalists because of the success of moderates in moderating the churches and movements to which they belong. The Anglicans are in crisis because of the success of moderates at opening that church to things like a gay clergy. The problem with having the discussion here is that we are on a board that discusses a religion that has been fairly radical from its beginning. For the folks who wanted to be ruled by a prophet monarch and to marry multiple wives, I would say the opposition to gay marriage is moderate by comparison. Mormonism actually is a story of the triumph of moderates over radicals, but people here tend to judge it against a fairly radical (if laudable) agenda from the other end of the spectrum.

The fundamentalists decry the moderates most vehemently as turncoats and traitors. They prefer having an easily defined enemy like an anti-Mormon. We have seen very clearly how they love to vilify a John Dehlin as "a wolf in sheep's clothing." If moderates were unsuccessful, this would not happen. Fundamentalists correctly see what you do not, that instead of anti-Mormon demons, moderates are the worst enemies to their extremism.

What amazes me is the way in which you guys have adopted the historically ignorant Harris point of view when you have been watching these things happen right in front of your eyes. Why do you think Schryver and Pahoran go after me so vehemently, claiming that I am a crypto-anti-Mormon? Because moderates are far more dangerous to them than anti-Mormons. Why? Because moderates define Mormonism in a way that is far more amenable to the influence of reason and science. An anti-Mormon is just a person fulfilling Mormon stereotypes (from the Fundamentalist point of view). They need to define me as anti-Mormon to keep the real implications of my views from registering with all the lurkers out there.

Aside from her specialty in Spalding-Rigdon, it seems to me that marg comes around here for the entertainment of boosting her ego. If you think Fundamentalists are the least bit concerned about the influence of marg, other than as a cautionary tale, then you are gravely mistaken. To Mormons, marg is like the dead alcoholic in the gutter who they see as being on the far end of that process that begins when a good Mormon takes a single sip. To the fundamentalist, there is really no such thing as moderation in all things. I am the guy who interprets the WoW such that I have no trouble drinking a beer here and there. In this I am the truly scary one.

You should read Frank Rich's editorial about wacko-conservatives. It applies very well to this discussion.

[_beastie]

If moderates are already successful, then why are we still at risk from fundamentalists? It varies which fundamentalists are currently the most problematic, of course. Right now Islamic fundamentalists seem the most threatening, but it wouldn't take much to switch the focus to another group.

Good point about the success of moderates in the LDS church, by the way. The LDS church certainly is more moderate than it used to be, no doubt.

[_Trevor]

If moderates are already successful, then why are we still at risk from fundamentalists? It varies which fundamentalists are currently the most problematic, of course. Right now Islamic fundamentalists seem the most threatening, but it wouldn't take much to switch the focus to another group.

Good point about the success of moderates in the LDS church, by the way. The LDS church certainly is more moderate than it used to be, no doubt.

This is fairly easy to answer. It is technology that gives fundamentalists a disproportionately large profile. Technology gives them the weapons to spread propaganda and cause dramatic instances of destruction. Islamic fundamentalism is less the child of Islam than it is the child of the failed policies of Western nations in the Middle East.

Of course, we could have a large Islamic empire to deal with. Thankfully, the successes of the West have reduced Islamic imperialism to the point where it is mostly the Fundamentalists who openly advertize their imperialist political agenda. Moderation is wildly successful. Pointing to the remnants in their death throes as evidence of the failure of moderates is, imho, skewed.