Karen Armstrong's Comments on Richard Dawkins

[_Kishkumen]

You are nicer than me. I lampoon because I view this preoccupation with religion as wasteful. Though someone may find it meaningful and ascribe to it sacredness does not mean that in the marketplace of ideas, these religious beliefs have value. Questioning these ideas, criticizing the ideas, I think is fine as it hopefully will have some impact on the direction we collectively take. I do not view my criticism as pointless as it may impact someone to the point of questioning their base.

As to scientifically testing the resurrection of Jesus, yes it is an absurd idea. But no more absurd than any sacred mythology.

I don't know that I am nicer than you. I am probably not nicer than you.

I get that you think religion is wasteful, but then so too are the pastimes of playing video games, watching sitcoms, going to amusement parks, and so many other human activities. Playing Dungeon & Dragons is a huge waste of time, but a lot of young people do that. So the problem with religion seems to be not that it is any more wasteful than the many other seemingly pointless activities people spend their time on, does it?

One of the interesting things you say here is that people find religion meaningful and ascribe sacredness to things, but that in the marketplace of ideas they do not necessarily have value. Well, value is relative, right? The "marketplace" metaphor falls short because it is relative, and what some people value is not indicative of its value to me. A billion people may want to buy a Ferrari, but that does not mean I want to, or that there is some absolute value to a Ferrari.

So there must be something more to one's objection to religion than the idea that what you personally find unappealing should be unappealing to a billion Christians too. So, you will spend your time fighting for your personal preferences regarding metaphysics and cosmology much like you would try to convince your friends to buy the latest Playstation. More is at stake than that, I am sure.

I think we make the mistake of believing that if we can get people to reject the supernatural, Jesus, and other absurdities that they will start reasoning more logically and we will all be better off for it. You are much more optimistic than I am. I think it is optimistic to the point of naïve, since materialism or naturalism does not necessarily lead to a better political outcome for everyone.

What I think is rather the case is that humanity is simply flawed much like any other naturally occurring animal species. Our success will prove to be our Achilles' heel, and we can look forward to a giant die-off. In other words, our success has stretched beyond the point of the system to sustain it much longer. Through war, disease, ecological disaster, or other factors, balance will be returned to the system. You and I can try to affect that one way or the other, but in the end we all will participate in the great die-off. Our team will kill and be killed.

[_SteelHead]

By value I mean things that will help us survive as a race/better humanity/improve conditions for everyone . Religion had value. It was key in creating society. Helped us to become what we are. Now it is an anchor. I agree with your pessimism about our future to a point. But if we are to avoid a mass extinction event it will likely involve getting past the denial of what is in front of our noses as mandated by a political-religious ideology. Crawling out of the demon haunted world.

I think the episode of Southpark where the future "religious" wars were between aethist factions arguing about something which faction's name was the most logical was poignant. And yes the mechanism to which cartman got to the future was because of his desire to not wait for the release of a new game console. Those southpark writers have delightful insight into humanity.

[_Kishkumen]

By value I mean things that will help us survive as a race/better humanity/improve conditions for everyone . Religion had value. It was key in creating society. Helped us to become what we are. Now it is an anchor. I agree with your pessimism about our future to a point. But if we are to avoid a mass extinction event it will likely involve getting past the denial of what is in front of our noses as mandated by a political-religious ideology. Crawling out of the demon haunted world.

I think the episode of Southpark where the future "religious" wars were between aethist factions arguing about something which faction's name was the most logical was poignant. And yes the mechanism to which cartman got to the future was because of his desire to not wait for the release of a new game console. Those southpark writers have delightful insight into humanity.

Yep. I don't know that being confrontational is the way to get to a brighter future. I was more hopeful when a number of Evangelicals started to incorporate care for the environment in their theology. I think that has a lot more chance of being successful than convincing people that they were dumb to believe in Jesus. But, whatevs. As I said, I believe our species is doomed and that anything a few of us try to do to save the rest will be futile in the end.

[_Morley]

As I said, I believe our species is doomed and that anything a few of us try to do to save the rest will be futile in the end.

As do I. However, I think that we're still obligated to make the effort. Thanks to all who do.

Good conversation, Kish and Steel.

[_huckelberry]

Huckelberry, can you please scientifically disprove that there is a pink invisible dragon living in my garage.

I am puzzled. I nowhere proposed to prove Jesus rose from the dead.Such an undertaking is absurd. Even so I care about Jesus, he is a world changing figure, a source of inspiration at the least. Your invisible dragon is of no interest.

[_SteelHead]

Christianity believes God raised Jesus from the dead. How do you propose to test that?

Tomato, tamahto.


Interesting or not, it is the same kind of proposition.

[_Kishkumen]

As do I. However, I think that we're still obligated to make the effort. Thanks to all who do.

I agree, but it is difficult not to be discouraged right now.

[_Philo Sofee]

As do I. However, I think that we're still obligated to make the effort. Thanks to all who do.

I agree, but it is difficult not to be discouraged right now.

Nope, I won't accept this from one of my heroes....... we're in it all together, and we work together. Chin up bro!

[_honorentheos]

By value I mean things that will help us survive as a race/better humanity/improve conditions for everyone . Religion had value. It was key in creating society. Helped us to become what we are. Now it is an anchor. I agree with your pessimism about our future to a point. But if we are to avoid a mass extinction event it will likely involve getting past the denial of what is in front of our noses as mandated by a political-religious ideology. Crawling out of the demon haunted world.

I think the episode of Southpark where the future "religious" wars were between aethist factions arguing about something which faction's name was the most logical was poignant. And yes the mechanism to which cartman got to the future was because of his desire to not wait for the release of a new game console. Those southpark writers have delightful insight into humanity.

Yep. I don't know that being confrontational is the way to get to a brighter future. I was more hopeful when a number of Evangelicals started to incorporate care for the environment in their theology. I think that has a lot more chance of being successful than convincing people that they were dumb to believe in Jesus. But, whatevs. As I said, I believe our species is doomed and that anything a few of us try to do to save the rest will be futile in the end.

I posted this elsewhere on the board as part of a political discussion but feel it could be said in relation to this topic as well.

I’m going to toss something out that might be controversial but has merit for discussion.

If a person believes in evolutionary theory, especially as an atheist, one has to believe that whatever biological organisms that are alive today represent winning strategies and methods for survival over the ones that didn't make it and we don't see.

If one extends this theory in the same way as Richard Dawkins or E.O. Wilson has done, one also has to acknowledge that – independent of right or wrong – encoded in the prevailing social orders of societies are successful strategies that were the winners over losing social organizing structures. For better or worse, one has to be conscientious of this fact when criticizing the institutions of societies. I would argue that general religious order is very much part of this encoded evolutionary success story.

So, what does this have to do with the OP?

Part of the success of human culture includes the way societies cohere to outperform individual or other group achievement. Inherent in our biological evolution are the same reward and punishment mechanisms tied to social behaviors as are tied to individual behaviors. We don’t like freeloaders and react negatively to cheaters. We tend to want to punish them and feel this is moral action. Just as an example.

If one maps certain moral thinking onto this, one potentially finds that those who self-identify as conservative also have certain moral values that favor strong small-group ties over expansive inclusiveness, fairness and openness-oriented values. While those who tend to self-identify as liberal tend to the opposite, favoring fairness and openness over loyalty to group identity and authority structures.

One of the real challenges I think modern liberal movements face is that evolution doesn’t seem to provide many examples of success stories built around the values they embrace. It’s very true that much of what we see as the advancement of civilization over the last couple of centuries is built on liberal (referencing a commitment to individual rights) democratic societies rising to dominance along with rapid technological achievement and wealth generation that is unprecedented in human history. But that isn’t to say the story of humanity has closed on what made it successful in the past.

Liberal democratic values may be facing an existential crisis now precisely because it conflicts with the biological success stories of our ancestors, and Hume had a bit to say about what happens when we confuse our actions as being rational rather than emotional.

We had a bit of a debate here on the board some time back about how liberalism is failing because it relies too much on rational argument. Fair points were made, and I think Hume decided me that there is real concern over the obvious appeal of certain conservative views when presented in ways that appeal to one’s non-conscious brain. The real question to me becomes how liberal ideals remain true to their virtue-based roots while finding pathways of appeal to people’s emotions that don’t backfire.

For example, the debate over identify politics in the US seems to be one place that the liberal side of the spectrum attempts to appeal to peoples emotional sense of what is fair. But all too often the underlying principles of fairness which would probably find more wide-spread agreement get overshadowed by the techniques used to sell them. Or force them as the case may be.

So, when we look to the religious right in America, I think we see a very deeply emotion-based reaction to politics that doesn’t necessarily reflect how the average Christian would behave in a one-on-one interaction. Why? Because at the scale being discussed it isn’t about charity, it’s about group success and fairness principles that don’t see individuals as being unfairly treated. Rather, they are cheater looking to freeload on society. And there is a very, very strong biological impulse to punish when that is the case. That impulse is there because societies that consisted of meaningful cohorts of individuals with that biological impulse were the winners over whatever other societies were out there. Tea Party politics have a voting block that is represented in Washington now. Occupy Wall Street didn’t want leaders, demands, or coherent organization so everyone could have an equal voice. They got fire-hosed and tear gassed until they dissolved and went home. Tea Party v OWS seems to be one modern micro-example of why liberal values are challenged by their own inherent nature it seems.

I say all that because, while I get the criticism of the OP I think we have big challenges that aren’t immediately obviously resolvable. And that concerns me to no end right now.

To apply it more directly to this thread, I think evolutionary history forces us to be somewhat more humble when it come to the value of religion beyond it's ability to tell us about those things science has proven much better at answering. For all of the apparent disadvantages it seems to have, there is something going on between religion and human evolutionary success. To accept the scientific explanation for creation is to demand one have some level of respect for what we don't really seem to understand as well as we pretend.

[_Kishkumen]

Nope, I won't accept this from one of my heroes....... we're in it all together, and we work together. Chin up bro!

Thank you, Philo. You are too kind. I can assure you that I don't give up. It helps to have encouragement from friends!