Richard Dawkins On Mormons.

[_Ray A]

It's not hard to understand Dawkins' view when you read his latest book. If this doesn't finally convince the evolution naysayers that Genesis is nothing but a myth, it's unlikely that anything will. Issac Asimov also put paid to it many moons ago, but books like these are very unlikely to be read by true believers.

One doesn't need anti-Mormon/anti-Christian literature to see the patent and highly inventive nature of the Genesis fable, which is carried over into the Book of Mormon, like a fiction built upon another fiction, in the name of being a "second witness". It is a startling contrast to what actually happens in the natural world, and raises the perennial "problem of evil" question. This, ultimately, is what destroyed Darwin's faith (not the death of his daughter, as some have supposed).

Darwin, however, never publicly attacked Christianity, and some of his most stinging private criticisms were published post-humously, probably because his wife was a devout Christian. Although this contrasts somewhat with Dawkins, it is really the rise of Christian fumdamentalism in the 1920s that largely and gradually sparked pro-active and open criticism of the new religious fundamentalisms. Dawkins perceives, and perhaps rightly, that it has got way out of control. Dawkins is essentially a creation of this. And not only that, he views "moderates" as assisting it, and therefore just as worthy of condemnation.

[_Trevor]

What motives, thoughts and feelings do I attribute to Mormons? And what makes you think I have only looked at comments by ex-mormons?

Don't be coy, marg. Every time you talk about how it isn't Dawkins who is guilty of lying, manipulating, etc., it is fairly clear who it is you do accuse of those things.

You have some strange utopian ideal of how children must be raised, even against the will of their parents, because religious education is, in your mind, a form of abuse. You tread dangerously in the direction of undermining the freedom you claim to champion, and yet the irony of that is completely lost on you.

Trevor it's called raising conscious awareness.

Yes, that is the mantra. Repeat "it's consciousness raising."

No one is doing anything against the will of parents, but there are many parents who may not even appreciate they are indoctrinating or that it might be abusive because the child is defenseless and in no position to critically evaluate.

Yes, no one is doing anything against the will of the parents, except teaching their children secular values in the schools. Now, I am a fan of those values, but it is fairly clear that the will of many parents is not represented in the way the curriculum is set. We ought not to pretend otherwise.

And, although atheists aren't currently able to make childhood religious education unlawful, it is not as though they don't consider the possibility as something desirable.

It is not fully understood why earlier indoctrination so powerfully takes hold, but it does. I'll give you a mild example of consciousness raising. My sister in law who is not particularly religious, told her 11 year old daughter and repeated it in front of my dad and myself that the cat (which had died the previous day) had gone to animal heaven. Later without the daughter around, my dad said to her "why are you telling her that if you don't believe it? Tell her that some people believe when people or animals die they go to heaven, not everyone believes that". And that's what Dawkins is doing, nothing more, raising people's conscious awareness to look at something from a different perspective they might not have ever thought of. And yes I do think it's abusive, that is my opinion which I believe is Dawkins'.

I know you buy your own BS. I, however, do not. To compare what your dad did with what Dawkins is doing simply does not work. The issue here is one of honesty. If your sister-in-law does not believe in something, then there is good reason to say that she shouldn't lie to her daughter about it. That is quite different from your sister-in-law believing in that kind of thing, and then your father verbally assaulting her for her BS beliefs that make no sense. The latter is the Dawkins way.

I have no idea what you are arguing. I argued that science is a method which uses evidence and does offer reliable conclusions.

Try to keep up, marg. I said essentially the same thing, and you persisted in acting as though I did not. Perhaps because you were unwilling to make the effort to follow what I was saying.

Ya what an off the wall, crazy theory the Spalding/Rigdon theory is! (sarcasm) And now those Stanford nuts with their recent wordprint analysis supporting the theory, the crazy things people will do.

Oh yeah, marg, no one at Stanford ever supported a bad hypothesis. That's a great argument... a great faulty argument from authority. And until they isolate the Joseph Smith wordprint, the study remains incomplete, which says nothing about the (un)proven value of wordprint analysis. There is a huge difference between an intriguing study and proof, but I don't expect you to grasp it.

What is truly bad is the historical case for Spalding-Rigdon. There really isn't much of one. The wordprint analysis is interesting, but the whole thing is far too preliminary to pretend you really "showed me."

There you go again Trevor, argue for yourself. Stop trying to round up troops.

What troops? All I see is independent confirmation from numerous sources that my assessment of you as a discussant is valid. It is not as though they have to come confirm it, although beastie revealed her thoughts on the matter indirectly already.

[_Trevor]

It's not hard to understand Dawkins' view when you read his latest book. If this doesn't finally convince the evolution naysayers that Genesis is nothing but a myth, it's unlikely that anything will. Issac Asimov also put paid to it many moons ago, but books like these are very unlikely to be read by true believers.

Yes, Genesis is a myth. And, there are a number of theists and deists who already accept that. Brigham Young was among them, oddly enough. You are also right that it is unlikely many believers will read Dawkins, but he kind of brought that on himself by telling them how stupid they are.

Darwin, however, never publicly attacked Christianity, and some of his most stinging private criticisms were published post-humously, probably because his wife was a devout Christian. Although this contrasts somewhat with Dawkins, it is really the rise of Christian fumdamentalism in the 1920s that largely and gradually sparked pro-active and open criticism of the new religious fundamentalisms. Dawkins perceives, and perhaps rightly, that it has got way out of control. Dawkins is essentially a creation of this. And not only that, he views "moderates" as assisting it, and therefore just as worthy of condemnation.

What is far more powerful than ridiculing fundamentalists is educating them. Bart Ehrman's story should be enough to convince anyone of that verity. Sadly, when ego comes before the desire to enlighten, education takes a back seat to self-congratulations for being especially clever.

[_Ray A]

You are also right that it is unlikely many believers will read Dawkins, but he kind of brought that on himself by telling them how stupid they are.

I'm quite sure that isn't the real reason. The real reason is that it may threaten their faith. Or they are just not interested in that line of reasoning. No matter how many times someone calls me an uneducated idiot, that would not be sufficient for me to reject what they say. Maybe they are right, I would reason. Even a fool occasionally speaks some truth.

What is far more powerful than ridiculing fundamentalists is educating them. Bart Ehrman's story should be enough to convince anyone of that verity. Sadly, when ego comes before the desire to enlighten, education takes a back seat to self-congratulations for being especially clever.

Crossan tried it too. The Jesus Seminar tried it. If you're going to mine for gold nuggets in Christianity, or any religion, then doctrine and theology should be completely divorced from such a quest. There's no point saying that "Jesus never existed" on the one hand (example only), then on the other, "there's a mystical supremacy of intuition and revelation that occurs with the thought of transubstantiation". A better way to phrase it, as I once did to my Catholic sister, is, "it's really a lot of BS" (no, she didn't appreciate it). I could have agreed with her on many points of Catholic doctrine, but that would not have changed her one bit. She's still of the frame of mind that a devout Catholic must seek archbishop approval to use contraceptives. She forbid her daughters from using contraceptives - and one of them got pregnant. Likewise with Mother Theresa, the "living saint" (at the time) who was outspoken about contraceptive use (on doctrinal grounds), urged restraint and "chastity", while the AIDS epidemic raged on.

How do you reason with that? By shaking Mother Theresa's hand and saying, "God bless you, sister"?

[_marg]

Yes, no one is doing anything against the will of the parents, except teaching their children secular values in the schools. Now, I am a fan of those values, but it is fairly clear that the will of many parents is not represented in the way the curriculum is set. We ought not to pretend otherwise.

I see so what particular religious beliefs do you think should be taught but aren't?

And, although atheists aren't currently able to make childhood religious education unlawful, it is not as though they don't consider the possibility as something desirable.

So what if some atheists think it would be desirable that parents couldn't indoctrinate their kids with religion? That concerns you but it doesn't concern you that churches are multibillion dollar organizations peddling lies and feeding off people's insecurities?

I know you buy your own BS. I, however, do not. To compare what your dad did with what Dawkins is doing simply does not work. The issue here is one of honesty. If your sister-in-law does not believe in something, then there is good reason to say that she shouldn't lie to her daughter about it. That is quite different from your sister-in-law believing in that kind of thing, and then your father verbally assaulting her for her BS beliefs that make no sense. The latter is the Dawkins way.

Ok, be honest with me, are you teaching your kids that the Book of Mormon is a fictional book and J. Smith not a prophet or if you aren't teaching them at this point, what about in the future do you plan to indoctrinate them as you were?

Ya what an off the wall, crazy theory the Spalding/Rigdon theory is! (sarcasm) And now those Stanford nuts with their recent wordprint analysis supporting the theory, the crazy things people will do.

Oh yeah, marg, no one at Stanford ever supported a bad hypothesis. That's a great argument... a great faulty argument from authority. And until they isolate the Joseph Smith wordprint, the study remains incomplete, which says nothing about the (un)proven value of wordprint analysis. There is a huge difference between an intriguing study and proof, but I don't expect you to grasp it.

Why are you so emotionally invested that J. Smith must be the author of the Book of Mormon? Why are you unable to look at evidence which leads to a different conclusion?

What is truly bad is the historical case for Spalding-Rigdon. There really isn't much of one. The wordprint analysis is interesting, but the whole thing is far too preliminary to pretend you really "showed me."

Once again you've bought into propaganda, by saying there isn't a case for Spalding/Rigdon. There is so much strong evidence, so much so that it is overwhelming and no other theory even comes close.

There you go again Trevor, argue for yourself. Stop trying to round up troops.

What troops? All I see is independent confirmation from numerous sources that my assessment of you as a discussant is valid. It is not as though they have to come confirm it, although beastie revealed her thoughts on the matter indirectly already.

Kudos to Beastie, I suppose you'd like to have her get more involved. Beastie hasn't a clue the things you've said to me and I understand that. She sees you as the victim who I've all of a sudden been nasty to in a thread. I don't expect others to follow or know the things you've said, or your false accusation against me which you brushed aside as unimportant and never owned up to. But as far as the troops go I'm not talking about this thread.

Generally when people start arguing and speaking as if on behalf of others instead of using the personal pronoun, they are attempting to encourage others to get involved.

[_Trevor]

No matter how many times someone calls me an uneducated idiot, that would not be sufficient for me to reject what they say. Maybe they are right, I would reason. Even a fool occasionally speaks some truth.

Well, it is very generous to imagine that other people will be similarly impervious to the condescension of Dawkins. I am skeptical.

Crossan tried it too. The Jesus Seminar tried it.

And people continue to educate. It does make a difference. Maybe it is not the immediate, huge change you would hope for, but the progress that has been made in the past few centuries is reason for hope. To cave in to another form of fundamentalism out of impatience is not the way to go.

[_Ray A]

To cave in to another form of fundamentalism out of impatience is not the way to go.

I agree. From the perspective of science, Dawkins isn't a fundamentalist though.

[_Trevor]

I see so what particular religious beliefs do you think should be taught but aren't?

Now there's one hell of a ginormous leap. Since I never suggested supporting such a thing, there is no reason to discuss it. By the way, have you stopped beating your husband yet?

So what if some atheists think it would be desirable that parents couldn't indoctrinate their kids with religion? That concerns you but it doesn't concern you that churches are multibillion dollar organizations peddling lies and feeding off people's insecurities?

Isn't it grossly contradictory that you fear the influence of religious fundamentalists in the school system preventing evolution from being taught, but you would turn around and keep parents from educating them in the family faith? One simply can't have it both ways.

Ok, be honest with me, are you teaching your kids that the Book of Mormon is a fictional book and J. Smith not a prophet or if you aren't teaching them at this point, what about in the future do you plan to indoctrinate them as you were?

What I teach my kids is none of your business.

Why are you so emotionally invested that J. Smith must be the author of the Book of Mormon? Why are you unable to look at evidence which leads to a different conclusion?

Again, you are ignorant of my views or what I am willing or unwilling to do. I invite you to peruse past threads in which I defended people exploring the Spalding-Rigdon hypothesis, including the Criddle study. That you imagine me to be "so emotionally invested" in the notion that Joseph Smith is the author of the Book of Mormon is such an incredibly daft distortion of who I am and what I commonly do that it completely beggars the imagination how you come up with such garbage.

Once again you've bought into propaganda, by saying there isn't a case for Spalding/Rigdon. There is so much strong evidence, so much so that it is overwhelming and no other theory even comes close.

Except the most obvious one, of course. The one that the evidence in plain sight points to. The one that does not rely on ex post facto affidavits and speculations about the possibility that Sidney Rigdon appropriated a manuscript that is now missing, or that an unknown stranger in Palmyra who was dressed well was actually Rigdon. Really, marg, there are enough gaping holes in this argument to drive a fleet of Mack trucks through.

With all due respect to Uncle Dale and the many other intelligent Spalding-Rigdon theorists, the case is so far from being made that your confidence in it only detracts from your credibility.

Beastie hasn't a clue the things you've said to me and I understand that. She sees you as the victim who I've all of a sudden been nasty to in a thread. I don't expect others to follow or know the things you've said, or your false accusation against me which you brushed aside as unimportant and never owned up to.

Can you hear the world's smallest violin? It is playing just for you. Let the pity party begin.

[_Trevor]

I agree. From the perspective of science, Dawkins isn't a fundamentalist though.

Regarding his science, I would agree. Regarding his attitudes about religion, he inclines very much in the direction of fundamentalism. One need not be a fundamentalist in every area to be justly considered a fundamentalist in at least one area.

[_Ray A]

Regarding his science, I would agree. Regarding his attitudes about religion, he inclines very much in the direction of fundamentalism. One need not be a fundamentalist in every area to be justly considered a fundamentalist in at least one area.

Well in the "other area", I'm seriously considering his statement that religion serves no evolutionary purpose. I'm not decided yet. If anything, religion may be some kind of deceptive means to make (some) people more altruistic, as we see in nature, often. That's about the only valid "purpose" I can see (speculating of course). We know that it doesn't make the fundies very altruistic. And that's the group he targets most, and their "accomplice moderates" who, instead of calling BS where it should be called, turn on Dawkins himself. It's a sort of fuzzy feelgood thing that, in my opinion, they may not have scrutinised as closely as Dawkins has.