Dawkins - good or bad? Discussion.

I thought this deserved a thread in it's own right. Before we start, a couple of ground rules please:

* Keep it civil - disagreeing with what someone says is one thing, but respect what other people think and don't get personal.
* Keep it reasoned - if you make a statement, back it up with evidence or clear reasoning.
* Keep it on topic - this discussion is about what we (you) think about Richard Dawkins, his ideas and specifically his promoting of them. The 'religion debate' whilst clearly linked, is not at the centre of this - if this is successful (i.e we manage to have an intelligent, reasoned debate without any tantrums or bible-bashing from either side) then we could start another thread later on 'Religion' maybe?


Without further ado, I propose the motion that:

Whilst Richard Dawkins is entitled to his beliefs, just the same as every other human being, his attitude and particular style of preaching his 'non-religion' to other people is, on the whole 'bad'.

Why do I say this? Firstly, nobody has any right to try and force their ideas or beliefs on other people. It doesn't matter if you're the Pope, an Imam, Terry Wogan, a Rabbi or the aforementioned Richard Dawkins - you should respect other people's beliefs just as they should respect yours. I firmly believe that as long as you are not bothering or harming anyone else you should be free to do, and believe, whatever you want. I utterly fail to see on an individual level, how one person's religious beliefs affect anyone else or are anyone else's business. In short - 'live and let live' and we'd all get along a lot better. In my view, Richard Dawkins does not do this, although I suppose it could be argued that nobody forces people to read his books - maybe we should respect him and his preachings in the same way we respect (or should do) any other preacher.

Furthermore we must take a wider view, in my experience his books are often used by people for whom 'atheism' is simply a bandwagon to jump on in an act of rebellion or pseudo-intellectualism. They bash their new-found holy book and quote from it without really understanding what it means in vitriolic attacks on other people and their beliefs - in short no different to any other ill-informed religious fanatic. These people often cause irritation, offence and at times distress to the people whose beliefs they are attempting to 'debunk', which goes against my 'live and let live' statement earlier. I do not believe this behaviour is acceptable from anybody, whether they are Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Pastafarian fanatics or Atheist fanatics.




Take it away!


[Edit - IIRC it is traditional when first entering the discussion to state whether you agree or disagree with the opening statement.]

 

Ok - Who is Richard Dawkins?

 

Dawkins can be/is heavy handed but I have to agree largely with his ideology.


I have no issues with anyone who is religious but I feel that the overwhelming reliance on a book that is over 2000 years old and has dubious origins due to the vatican preventing anyone from studying the original texts and/or even seeing them.


I personally think the Bible is a book that can be used to pass on lessons (turn the other cheek, be nice to your fellow man etc...) but it's no different to other books that can pass on the same message aside from the fact it has this lovely label of religion attached to it that prevents any sort of criticism as that will offend the religious.


I personally hope those that believe in the literal interpretation of the bible are deluded/misguided at best or at worst they are people who are using the naivety of others to make an easy penny (creationist "museum" in Carolina).


In otherwords I feel Dawkins is a very clever and capable man who goes about his anti religious views too agressively. I do however agree with him that the world has moved on from the need for a supernatural power above all else and that religion is largely the cause of conflicts in this world due to stupid stupid people taking things literally or construing them for their own personal ends.



arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully

This is Dawkins view of God. From what I've read of the bible he's not far off.

 

@ Moylesy - Google throws up a result in 0.47 secs.


@ MFB - While I have no real problem with his ideology per se (Like I say, he can believe what he wants - as can anyone), it's more the aggressive attitude he takes with regard to religion, and the lack of respect he shows for other people's beliefs - and IMO, thus the people themselves.

As far as:
"I have no issues with anyone who is religious but I feel that the overwhelming reliance on a book that is over 2000 years old and has dubious origins due to the vatican preventing anyone from studying the original texts and/or even seeing them."

That is just one religion, what about Buddhism or Taoism for instance?

I agree with your sentiments that the Bible is a collection of moral stories/fables, although the New Testament does contain accounts of a man who we know lived ~2000 years ago in what is now Israel and his teachings, which for the most part are based on courtesy and respect for you fellow man. Maybe he was the Son of God, or maybe he was just the worlds first hippie, either way what he said is as valid now as it was then - if it encourages people to behave a bit nicer to each other surely that's not a bad thing?

There is no doubt Dawkins in a clever man having done a fair amount of research into various scientific fields, and I do have a sneaking suspicion that his intelligence is also supported by what appears to be cashing in on the 'religion debate' by writing a string of books when IMO one or two might get his point across just as well.

As far as religion causing conflicts goes, yes a lot of deaths have been caused in the name of religion - but people have been killed for their race, political affiliation, football team, country and many other things. I personally think religion has simply been used as a convenient excuse for people to organise themselves into 'tribes' in order to satisfy what appears to be a basic need to belong to a group and kill members of another group.

Finally, with regards to Dawkins view of God, again he focusses on the Old Testament, whereas if you read the New Testament God appears to be a much more benevolent character who professes forgiveness etc.

[Edit - just reread that and would like to clarify: I do not consider myself religious, I do however find religion interesting as part of a civilisations culture, as well as the philosophy and ideas behind them and how they have evolved over time. I would describe myself as 'agnostic with an open mind'.]

 

The problem I have with Dawkins (and others of his ilk) is that he/they attack not only religion, but faith and spirituality. They tell people what to think and are no worse than fundamentalists in their own right. I wholeheartedly believe in something "out there" and there's no way that we could possibly begin to comprehend it. I don't follow any set religion, but I don't go around telling them "YOU'RE WRONG!"

 

There are some things in the Bible that can be taken literally. Some of it isn't but can be used to help understand certain things, the creation story is an example of this. While I don't believe it happened exactly as described, I do believe that God created the universe and everything in it, science indicates that the universe started with the Big Bang but has failed to produce any indication as to what caused it. Was it an act of God? Personally, I believe so, and the creation story loosely tallies with my understanding of astrophysics and what I've learned of science. Creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive either, evolution is very apparent in the world today but it does not disprove anything.

I find that offensive, the idea that religious people aren't open to discussion concerning their religion. If people want to discuss Christianity with me then they are welcome to, just as long as they don't openly attack me and my beliefs.

Is religion a need to believe a supreme being, is or religion born from such a belief? I don't know where this quote comes from, but it illustrates my point: "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him". While belief doesn't make something real, a lack of belief doesn't mean it's not real, and likewise a belief that it's not real.

I fundamentally disagree. The God of the Old Testament might be wrathful, jealous, vengeful, and so on, one part of the OT describes a battle lost by the Israelites because someone kept a few trinkets when they were ordered to destroy everything. What I have a problem with is the first sentence, discrediting the Bible by calling it fiction, it's not absolute truth and the parables are only stories but it is not fiction.

 

@ M66 - That's what I am getting at. It's fine if anyone does/doesn't believe in a divine entity, but it's simply not on to attack other people when they excercise their right to believe something you don't. Unfortunately, a lot of people (the 'bandwagon' variety of atheists mainly) seem to think that by reading (or skimming and getting the gist of) one of Dawkins books, it gives them permission to harass and attack people who don't think what they 'think' (and I use the term 'think' very loosely there) - again, no better than religious fanatics who do the same.

 

I disagree with Dickie in the assumption that Dawkin's style and/or argument is bad.

I have boldened my arguemtns for Dawkins to make the post read better.

In terms of general style Dawkins has made a branch of scientific theory available to the layman. One should not belittle this achievement. He has made science reading readable to the masses and has begun to address an imbalance in what society deems "acceptable".

Futhermore I respond to the author's post in sections below.

Without further ado, I propose the motion that:

Whilst Richard Dawkins is entitled to his beliefs, just the same as every other human being, his attitude and particular style of preaching his 'non-religion' to other people is, on the whole 'bad'.

Why do I say this? Firstly, nobody has any right to try and force their ideas or beliefs on other people.

? Agreed. However, the very essence of debate is to try to persuade others to your point of view.


It doesn't matter if you're the Pope, an Imam, Terry Wogan, a Rabbi or the aforementioned Richard Dawkins - you should respect other people's beliefs just as they should respect yours.

? Indeed however, I believe and Richard Dawkins seems to agree that those of the religious ?bent? have had a one-sided advantage. Society seems to accept religion has a DO NOT TOUCH sign above it.

I firmly believe that as long as you are not bothering or harming anyone else you should be free to do, and believe, whatever you want. I utterly fail to see on an individual level, how one person's religious beliefs affect anyone else or are anyone else's business.

? A Rabbi?s, A Priest?s, An Iman?s personal faith has a huge significance on those who are brought up to believe in something ? which in turn has a significant effect on those who are close to them or under their guidance.

In short - 'live and let live' and we'd all get along a lot better.

? 99% of people on this planet would probably agree with that statement. However, because of the restraint offered toward certain aspects of religion that 1% has a louder voice and thus bigger impact.

In my view, Richard Dawkins does not do this, although I suppose it could be argued that nobody forces people to read his books - maybe we should respect him and his preachings in the same way we respect (or should do) any other preacher.

? Dawkins asks to be challenged and uses scientific processes to argue his case. He has clearly stated that he is willing to change his mind if proof provides the opportunity. I?d like to see a man of ?religion? say the same.

Furthermore we must take a wider view, in my experience his books are often used by people for whom 'atheism' is simply a bandwagon to jump on in an act of rebellion or pseudo-intellectualism.

? How does this differ from ?believers? using their books to do the same? One cannot accuse Dawkins as ?bad? because others use his book(s) to attack those of religious beliefs.

They bash their new-found holy book and quote from it without really understanding what it means in vitriolic attacks on other people and their beliefs - in short no different to any other ill-informed religious fanatic.

? On that note I would assume you would consider the authors of the Bible, Koran etc on a par with Dawkins in your negative assumptions of him.

These people often cause irritation, offence and at times distress to the people whose beliefs they are attempting to 'debunk', which goes against my 'live and let live' statement earlier.

? I get irritated by those who claim there is an all listening, all seeing, all judging super divine presence but I?m not offended by these people.

? Religious people often cause irritation, offence and at times distress to the people whose beliefs they are attempting to 'debunk'.

? It seems you are willing to give religion a wide berth out of respect when the very same argument can be used against any form of evangelical movement?

I do not believe this behaviour is a

 

Very good. I find it difficult to believe that in the year 2007 anyone actually still believes in God, atleast believes in the God that christians, jews, muslims and any other organised religion believes in.

Anyone who follows any of the main religions believes in a supernatural being who has a temprement and maturity of a spoiled eight year old child, who's knowlege of basic science and geography is entirely retarded, who is a complete narsacist, who kills and punishes on a whim and shows serious signs of paranoid schitzophrenia, and who's legacy has more plot holes than the phantom menace.

The story of Jesus is a rip off and had been told at least 2 or 3 times previously in various incarnations and the very idea of a 'soul' was made up by late 2nd century philosiphers. Untill quite recently, it was thought the soul was a phyisical, tangible thing that existed somewhere inside the human body. We ofcourse now know that is nonsense and as religion is want to do, it changes and 'evolves' to try and fit in with every new scientific discovery that completely disproves its origonal claims.

The strangest thing in the whole argumant is that it is usually the atheists that are accused of having closed minds, when infact, it's the religious folk who are so insecure in their own beliefs that they refuse to open their own minds and look at the basic facts.

The truth is no one can possibly know the truth, but it is quite blatently obvious that anything written in the bible, koran and others is complete and utter rubbish, written by human beings at a time when they didn't have the foggiest idea what the bloody moon was never mind who they were and where they'd come from.

Even the old Pascals wager, which is a favoutite of the religious, claims that it is better to belive in God, because even if there isn't, you lost nothing. This argument falls flat on it's face. How the **** do we know that God doesn't punish blind faith, and reward those who are dubious and ask questions? By Christian standards, Heaven is full of rapists, peadophiles and murderers who repented on their death beds, and Hell is full of decent, moral, normal people who's only crime was to refuse to be indoctrinated into a bizzare and controling cult.

The main, undiniable truth is that any person who claims to know what 'god' is about is far more arrogant and missguided than those who have the integrity to just say, i'm not so sure.

Peace ya'll!

 

@Darth_Asabrush (my replies in red)

? Agreed. However, the very essence of debate is to try to persuade others to your point of view.
Agreed. However, there is a difference between debate and aggressively pushing your ideology.

? Indeed however, I believe and Richard Dawkins seems to agree that those of the religious ?bent? have had a one-sided advantage. Society seems to accept religion has a DO NOT TOUCH sign above it.
This is a valid point, however much of the 'Do Not Touch' sign is to do with the PC brigade rather than discussion causing some perceived offence. Most 'religious' people I have met have been only too happy to answer any questions about their beliefs.

? A Rabbi?s, A Priest?s, An Iman?s personal faith has a huge significance on those who are brought up to believe in something ? which in turn has a significant effect on those who are close to them or under their guidance.
This also is a valid point. One could also argue that people who read Dawkins books or listen to him speak are being influenced by his personal beliefs. Also, your religious beliefs (or lack of) should come from how you personally feel and what you think voluntarily, not what you are brought up to believe. Bringing up children 'to be' of one religion or another isn't right IMO, same with politics or prejudices.

? 99% of people on this planet would probably agree with that statement. However, because of the restraint offered toward certain aspects of religion that 1% has a louder voice and thus bigger impact.
A vocal minority is always an issue and will always exist whether it's religion, animal rights, global warming or politics for instance - it's not a valid reason for getting rid of something. Also, if the majority of people agree with that, why don't they show it? (Not a go at you, just at the population at large...)

? Dawkins asks to be challenged and uses scientific processes to argue his case. He has clearly stated that he is willing to change his mind if proof provides the opportunity. I?d like to see a man of ?religion? say the same.
Is that one of the key components of faith? That said, I think that the vast majority of religious people would change their minds if there was categoric proof that there is no divine entity - and vice versa.

? How does this differ from ?believers? using their books to do the same? One cannot accuse Dawkins as ?bad? because others use his book(s) to attack those of religious beliefs.
It doesn't. Yet it is OK to class religion as a negative thing because a minority use their holy-books to attack those who believe otherwise?

? On that note I would assume you would consider the authors of the Bible, Koran etc on a par with Dawkins in your negative assumptions of him.
Admittedly, this is open to your personal opinion somewhat: I think that the majority of holy-books were written in a similar vein to Aesop's fables - stories with a moral and a lesson. They were written to guide, not attack other people's beliefs. Also, they did not keep publishing new books, or make speeches decrying and attack other people's beliefs.

? I get irritated by those who claim there is an all listening, all seeing, all judging super divine presence but I?m not offended by these people.
Perhaps I should rephrase that, by irritation I meant more along the lines of "p*** off" as in 'to massively annoy'. Also, being irritated just by the fact that someone believes something different doesn't a) give you the right to attack that belief and b) 'live and let live' - cut them some slack and expect/request them to do the same.

? Religious people often cause irritation, offence and at times distress to the people whose beliefs they are attempting to 'debunk'.
Yup. Just as bad.

? It seems you are willing to give religion a wide berth out of respect when the very same argument can be used against any form of evangelical mo

 

May I present exhibit 'A' - just the kind of attitude, attack on other people's beliefs and the people who hold them, and lack of respect I was talking about. May I refer you to the follow lines I made at the start:

* You show a complete lack of respect for other people and their beliefs.
* Yours is not reasoned, you have provided nothing except statements with no reasoning/evidence to back them up.
* It's not on topic - this discussion is about Dawkins, not religion in general.

 

Not particularly discussion worthy

 

When we watched him in Ethics he reminded me of C-3PO

 

Dickie. Thank you for a thread that helps me return to FFUK

There is a slight problem with this discussion as I see it. Everything I have posted and your responses to my counter-points could be used for both sides of the argument!

I think the debate will natuarlly narrow itself down to a few finer points.

My responses in red.

Agreed. However, there is a difference between debate and aggressively pushing your ideology.
Agreed. One could argue that both are guilty of this.

This is a valid point, however much of the 'Do Not Touch' sign is to do with the PC brigade rather than discussion causing some perceived offence. Most 'religious' people I have met have been only too happy to answer any questions about their beliefs.
I disagree. The ?Do Not Touch? sign was hung up long before PC became part of our lexicon. I would concede that PC has made things worse. I should hope that anyone who has faith in their ?faith? would be up to it being questioned. I must say that from personal experience there is a difference between asking questions and questioning.

This also is a valid point. One could also argue that people who read Dawkins books or listen to him speak are being influenced by his personal beliefs. Also, your religious beliefs (or lack of) should come from how you personally feel and what you think voluntarily, not what you are brought up to believe. Bringing up children 'to be' of one religion or another isn't right IMO, same with politics or prejudices.
Yes, anyone who forms an opinion on something they have been taught or have read are in some way or another being influenced by that person. As a teacher I know the thin line I have to walk when entering into discussions with my students.

Dawkins argues your very case. He states that there is no such thing as a ?Christian? child merely a child of Christians as the child is not mature enough to form his/her own opinion. Here you agree with Dawkins.

A vocal minority is always an issue and will always exist whether it's religion, animal rights, global warming or politics for instance - it's not a valid reason for getting rid of something. Also, if the majority of people agree with that, why don't they show it? (Not a go at you, just at the population at large...)
Agreed but its also not a reason not to openly question something that has an impact on people such as religion.

Is that one of the key components of faith? That said, I think that the vast majority of religious people would change their minds if there was categoric proof that there is no divine entity - and vice versa.
?Faith? is convenient because it lacks the need of proof. That?s not good enough imo. I would argue that those without faith are more likely to accept a divine being if proof provided it than those who have faith having the opportunity to deny it. This is due to the convenience of ?faith?.

It doesn't. Yet it is OK to class religion as a negative thing because a minority use their holy-books to attack those who believe otherwise?
It doesn?t. But is ok to dismiss Dawkins because of some people jumping on the bandwagon to attack organised religion? No, of course not.

Admittedly, this is open to your personal opinion somewhat: I think that the majority of holy-books were written in a similar vein to Aesop's fables - stories with a moral and a lesson. They were written to guide, not attack other people's beliefs. Also, they did not keep publishing new books, or make speeches decrying and attack other people's beliefs.
They may have been written like that but they sure aren?t used like that by many many people today. I wouldn?t label the authors of the holy books as ?bad? merely because people misuse them. One could argue that the machine that allows this misuse i.e. religion can take some of the blame.

Also, The Bible is s series of separately published books, letters and speeches.

Perhaps I should rephrase that, by

 

Great topic Dickie.

I'll get into this soon. In the middle of something at the moment.

And a reminder. Keep it civil and on-topic. Dickie wants to discuss Dawkins rather than religion, so let's talk about Dawkins, please

 

Dawkins is a man who, as far as I'm concerned, an intelligence gone to waste. He's devoted his time and intelligence to trying to persuade people that religion is wrong, which he has no right to do.

 

Freedom of speech? He has as much of a right to say religion is wrong as all religions have to say their religion is right (and, coincidentally, that all other religions are wrong)

 

He has a right to say he thinks thei religion is wrong, not to try and persuade them that it's wrong. People should come to that decision themselves.

 

That brings us to points that Dawkins has made. What gives churches etc the right to indocrinate (read persuade) young children into their religion before they have the chance to think for themselves?

 

It...doesn't? From what I know, most families take their children to Church as they themselves are Christian and so they get brought up that way. An awful lot of people turn away from it and a lot of people don't. Religion teaches a lot of moral values to people, especially young children. And even so, I honestly don't get why Dawkins and others believe that just because you get brought up to believe in God you're suddenly insane or that it's a bad thing for children to be raised as Christians, Muslims et al.

 

It...doesn't? From what I know, most families take their children to Church as they themselves are Christian and so they get brought up that way.

Exactly. The parents have been brought up that way, so they pass it on to their children without even thinking about it. No child should be indocrinated into a religion before they have the capacity to think about it for themselves.

Just look at this case here. A father converts to Judaism, and then insists his son, (against the son's, and the man's ex-wife's will) should be circumcised, as is proper in Judaism religion. Except who's asked the boy whether he wants to be circumcised?

And the sickest thing is, the US court judges agreed with the father.

"I think the dad has the legal right as the custodial parent to make those kind of religious or medical decisions," McFarlane said. "It's not much different from cosmetic surgery."



Child abuse, anyone?

And even so, I honestly don't get why Dawkins and others believe that just because you get brought up to believe in God you're suddenly insane or that it's a bad thing for children to be raised as Christians, Muslims et al.

It's when religion gets in the way of human progress that gets up the nose of people like Dawkins and Hitchens. Especially when it comes to science. Issues like stem cell research, cloning and sex education to name but a few, are retarded (note this is used in the proper dictionary meaning and not the insulting fashion) by religious objections that have nothing more than, "It's against God's Will," or, "You're playing God", as their basis.

And don't even get me started on the Creationism/Intelligent Design versus Evolution argument.

 

So, the kids should be left at home when the parents go to Church until their 12? People will make a choice regardless due to the influence exerted by peer pressure. Being religious isn't cool so a lot of kids, especially now, are turning their back on the religions they were brought up on. This is exacerbated when they get to the "teenage rebellion" phase.

And I agree with you one hundered percent that's wrong. The father shouldn't have tried to force his beliefs on his family, much like Dawkins etc shouldn't try and force their beliefs on others.

And on this I again agree with you (mostly). Religion should have no basis in government and unfortunately in places like the US it does. However, as I stated previously, disagreeing is all well and good, explaining why it would be beneficial to society is all well and good. What isn't all well and good is trying to force your beliefs onto people.

And as for Creationism vs Evolution: Teach creationism in RE, teach evolution in science.

 

I have been an atheist all my life. I wasn't christened, but only due to a family bereavement at the time and my parents never getting round to it. My parents aren't strongly religious, but they have faith and saw christening as something that should of being done. I had my beliefs attacked on a number of occasions throughout my childhood, by adults and other children. This just made my opinion stronger as this hostile resentment made me think that it was them who were insecure. I also held a fascination with the mythology surrounding religions, and always took an interest. I would never attack someones beliefs until they had attacked mine, but I would always ask questions as I was curious.

Now I know this debate is about Dawkins, but I feel that background will show why I support him. As DA pointed out, a discussion is ultimately to persuade someone. Now religion has for years been able to have it's side out in the open pretty much without any counter point, other than other religions. All religion would attack atheist's. So to me it feels like Dawkins has simply given us our own book to quote back when we are attacked. Now of course, many people will simply use it to go out and attack others, it is just a simple fact of human nature that there are people who will find that pleasurable.

I also feel that he is making points more to do with the fact religion plays a major part of government in places, such as the US, which he gives a scary stat that an atheist candidate would get less votes. That is simple discrimination, but will never be viewed as such because it is against atheists, who don't seem to get the same protection for their beliefs as Religion does.

I hope I have not broke away from the topic of Dawkins too much.

 

So, the kids should be left at home when the parents go to Church until their 12? People will make a choice regardless due to the influence exerted by peer pressure. Being religious isn't cool so a lot of kids, especially now, are turning their back on the religions they were brought up on. This is exacerbated when they get to the "teenage rebellion" phase.


Depends on location. If we're talking about here in the UK, then yes, a lot of kids are turning their back on religion when they reach teenage years (hell, I was one of them, pretty much. Despite being forced to go to Church I never particularly believed). But elsewhere (the US, Middle East etc) teenagers are still outwardly religious (and, by our standards, annoyingly so). And their reasons for believing? Their parents (in America) and in the Middle East...they're given no choice.

And I agree with you one hundered percent that's wrong.

Glad we're agreed with that one.

However, as I stated previously, disagreeing is all well and good, explaining why it would be beneficial to society is all well and good. What isn't all well and good is trying to force your beliefs onto people.

So I take it you're against evangelical Christians/Jehovah's Witnesses, then?

And as for Creationism vs Evolution: Teach creationism in RE, teach evolution in science.

Partly agreed. It's going to get to the point that kids are going to be confused as to which explanation is the correct one. If they teach religion (obviously they do) in RE, then it should be all religions getting equal share rather than the Christian-centric versions we have in our schools today.

 

No, that was a great post.

(The warning given by me above was aimed at darth_isadog (before we found out he was a sock of a perma-banned troll))