Richard Dawkins & Atheism

[conor]

I know this is going to be a controversial one, but here goes...

Does anyone else think that Richard Dawkins is as bad as any hardcore believer?

By some peoples definition, I would probably be counted as an atheist. However, I would not like to be called an atheist. In university I did philosophy and one of our modules was the philosophy of religion. What I came away from that course with was an understanding of the fact that there has been thousands of years of musing about the nature of God, and that many religious thinkers ( even Christian religious thinkers) would be classed as atheists in Dawkins book (ie. they don't exactly view God as being a Flying Spaghetti monster.) There has been thousands of years of debate about the nature of "God", with God being a metaphor for existence, up until a couple of hundred years ago.

Then God became a corupt church.

Now, we must not follow any backwards dogmatic association out of touch with the modern world. But are too many people equating "God" with the Christian church, and dogmatic beliefs in God which are very much a part of a political system which is just that - a political system.

Is not the concept of God so much more complex than that?

Are we falling into a trap which precludes anything but the physical world?

In choosing sides in the debate, polarising ourselves to one view point bourne out of opposition to another, are we missing the point, effectively shutting ourselves off from seeing more than one angle?

Is Dawkins as much a fundamentalist as any bible basher, only his dogma is science rather than a Judeo Christian God?

Or am I a complete idiot for raising the issue in the first place?:

 

[jpw.in.wi]

Or am I a complete idiot for raising the issue in the first place?:

Not a "complete" one ... We're all idiots: some of us are just more idiotic than others.

As for Dawkins, he's a brilliant man, a world class debater, and I like a LOT of what he has to say about politics. But when he goes off on religion, I couldn't disagree with him more. Then when he started to huff and puff about the corruption, greed, and selfishness of Mother Teresa, I knew that it would be best to just stick to Dawkins on politics and war. (Maybe that's one sign that he is in fact too dogmatically atheist.)

But I have to say, I still like the guy. He'll come around someday

Saint or Organized Criminal?

 

[dusty]

Whilst I have no issue with Richard Hawkins obvious intellectual capacity, to my way of thinking the existence or non existence of God is not a topic that can ever be understood by just thinking, talking writing or speaking.
In short and at the risk of sounding pompous I think Mr Dawkins would do better trying to think with his heart rather than his head, and if he ever has the experience of real suffering in this world perhaps then he might gain a better perspective on the whole issue.

Also I think your comments on the whole Chistian church and dogmatic beliefs thing was correct. We may only have one planet but there are nearly seven billion worlds
(human that is) upon it and every one is as valuable as the next.

Mark

 

[Schuyler]

I think it is a mistake to associate organized religion with the concept of ‘God.’ Organized religion always screws it up. Self-proclaimed ‘atheists’ who attack organized religion are attacking superficialities and missing the point. It doesn’t matter one whit what organized religions do or say in terms of reality. I would also accuse them of knowing quite well that the myths they promulgate are wrong. For example, in most seminaries today the most intellectual Christians have come to a conclusion: Jesus Christ was a charismatic man with a message and that is it. He wasn’t ‘divine.’ He wasn’t the ‘Son of God’ any more than you or I are. Most believe he did not ‘ascend’ at all. Yet when these guys get to the pulpit, it’s just easier not to bring up the research and mess with the heads of the masses.

Any even partially objective observer has to admit that Man creates God in his own image. Western nuclear families are embodied in God, Jesus, and Mary. But if you are a Hindu, where families are matrilineal and run by Uncle, you have a pantheon of gods from elephant boy to the gal with all the arms. Their gods reflect their culture. If you go to the New Guinea highlands, the dominant view of ‘God’ is along the lines of ‘May the Force be with you.’

We are witnessing an interesting phenomenon these days with respect to scientific theory. Lots of scientists are beginning to say that they’ve just about got it figured out. There are few more particles to find, and there’s this troublesome string theory to either validate or reject, but by and large the structure of reality has revealed itself and the rest is in cleaning up some details. THIS SAME ATTITUDE was prevalent in the late 19th century when scientists said they had just about figured out everything Newton said and the rest was in cleaning up a few details.

Sound familiar? I happen to believe that at some point science and religion ‘merge,’ if you will. Both are talking about capital-R Reality and to get to the real Truth, they will have to merge. In THAT, I think, there are a lot of answers, including to the UFO question, where they come from and what they really are.

This ought to be a really interesting century.

 

[wicro]

We are witnessing an interesting phenomenon these days with respect to scientific theory. Lots of scientists are beginning to say that they’ve just about got it figured out. There are few more particles to find, and there’s this troublesome string theory to either validate or reject, but by and large the structure of reality has revealed itself and the rest is in cleaning up some details. THIS SAME ATTITUDE was prevalent in the late 19th century when scientists said they had just about figured out everything Newton said and the rest was in cleaning up a few details.

Sound familiar? I happen to believe that at some point science and religion ‘merge,’ if you will. Both are talking about capital-R Reality and to get to the real Truth, they will have to merge. In THAT, I think, there are a lot of answers, including to the UFO question, where they come from and what they really are.

This ought to be a really interesting century.

I'm not sure I would really agree with the idea that 'lots' of scientists feel they have solved or are on the brink of solving 'Reality'. Certainly the headline grabbing articles in popular scientific journals such as the New Scientist would seem to support this, but I feel they are often (and this is especially 'true' for the New scientist magazine which I'm a ex-subscriber of), much like most of the mainstream media deliberately going for the more outrageous claims. In fact I'm pretty fed up with the magazine, every week its 'the death of quantum physics' , ' Einstein was wrong!!' etc etc. Main stream coverage of theoretical physics such as when the Hadron Collider was switched on, highlight this trend. Headlines were of our imminent annihilation or 'solving' everything with 'God particles' were proclaimed. I'm sure in the background were some theoretical physicists rolling their eyes, much as we do when a UFO gets reported within the press!

One thing it does highlight rather well though, is that far from there being a scientific 'Truth' in physics there are a diverse number of competing theoretical positions that are seeking validation which in my opinion only shows that far from being a purely dogmatic science there is room for debate (within certain cultural and social constraints).

This is were I think the comparison with religious dogmatism would be incorrect. Taken at face value there may be some similarity. Studies from a sociological perspective have highlighted the way in which 'science' is indeed culturally and socially contingent, much as religion is. However, I feel that if sufficient evidence were presented even 'fringe' subjects can be integrated into mainstream scientific thought, albeit with resistance.

Parapsychology despite its sever underfunding has certainly attempted to show this, although unfortunately has not be able to make great inroads in theoretical terms. It still has provided some great case studies that certainly show that it could provide valuable insights into not only the human psyche but also 'hard' scientific 'facts'. Unfortunately in today's academic climate where anything that does not provided a revenue (at least here in the U.K.) for the University it is deemed superfluous. The commodification of 'knowledge', like other aspects of life has I feel, been to the detriment of real purely theoretical progress.

I'm a little unclear in what you mean by religion and science merging, could you elaborate on that? What 'parts' of religion do you feel could be integrated into any scientific theory? Or would it require some more fundamental over haul of 'science' in general?

 

[Schuyler]

I'm also an ex New Scientist subscriber, probably for some of the same reasons! I'll work on an elaboration--probably will just get me in trouble.

 

[Xylo]

I am an atheist. I was raised in the tradition of Pentecostal Holiness Churches. I'm quite familiar with the bible, the religious tradition and the concepts. I find them, as a belief system, quite fascinating.

That being my qualifier, I also find Dawkins, and any other atheist "preacher" to be a bit extreme. I would prefer a more open discussion to the "I'm right, you're wrong" dogmatic approach of either the Atheist or the believer. But belief, by it's very definition is subjective. A belief cannot be proven or disproven. There is no evidentiary trail to belief. Therefore I do not feel it is necessary to violently confront any religious belief system.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

For example, in most seminaries today the most intellectual Christians have come to a conclusion: Jesus Christ was a charismatic man with a message and that is it. He wasn’t ‘divine.’ He wasn’t the ‘Son of God’ any more than you or I are. Most believe he did not ‘ascend’ at all. Yet when these guys get to the pulpit, it’s just easier not to bring up the research and mess with the heads of the masses.

I am curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion. If the most intellectual seminary students in most seminaries hold this belief, why do they attend a Christian seminary? It doesn't make a lot of sense. Were you a seminary student? Have you taught at a variety of seminaries? How did you come to know these facts?

 

[Schuyler]

I am curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion. If the most intellectual seminary students in most seminaries hold this belief, why do they attend a Christian seminary? It doesn't make a lot of sense. Were you a seminary student? Have you taught at a variety of seminaries? How did you come to know these facts?

Yes, I have studied it as a matter of fact, and also hung out with seminarians. I've had the opportunity to spend quite a bit of time with a couple of professors of divinity, one a graduate of Harvard Divinity School who is an expert on Paul (and ancient Greek, which has been very helpful to me), and one a Catholic almost-priest who stopped just short of taking his vows. He was a life-long mentor to me, sadly, now deceased. My Uncle was a Southern Baptist minister; my father-in-law, a Congregationalist minister; and my mother, an avowed atheist. So you might say I am familiar.

As it happens, I did two years of research into Christianity as preparation for a book I was going to write, pretty much along the lines of the DaVinci Code, but Brown beat me to it (in spades! I admit to complete defeat.) At last count I had 55 books dealing with these issues from such authors as Pagels, John Meier (in three huge volumes), Crossan, Spoto, Straus, and 'The Jesus Seminar' (Funk & Hoover), Schweitzer (Yup, the army ant guy, who was a noted Christian scholar before he took to the jungle), and Duquesne. I think if you look around you will find that these people are among the foremost scholars of Christian History alive (or not) in the world today. I've also made several month-long trips to Greece, Turkey, and Italy specifically studying early Church history, in one case 'following the travels of Paul' to places like Ephesus and Corinth. A little side-trip to Troy was pretty eventful as well. I've even received special dispensation to enter the catacombs below the Vatican and see the place where the apostle Peter (edit. Sorry.) is said to have been buried. (They have what they think is proof. It's still creepy down there.)

My conclusions are very much in line with the DaVinci Code novel. My research has led me to believe it is likely Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene ("He kissed her on the mouth" --Gospel of Thomas, and Peter and the other disciples were jealous of her.) She was rich enough to bank roll his entire operation. He knew exactly what he was doing throwing out the money changers to incur the wrath of the authorities. He survived the crucifixion with the help of Joseph of Arimathea and managed to fake his resurrection. He and Mary likely had children and we are likely descendents--not that it matters. 2000 years is quite enough time for us all to be cousins. Do the math.

I quite understand that there are still seminaries which teach Jesus ascended into Heaven and you will go to Hell unless you accept Jesus as your own personal Savior. There's no doubt that Bob Jones 'university' and others like it still exist and preach what I consider to be drivel. But I maintain they are outside mainstream Christian scholarship and that the conclusions of such are very much in line with my first post. What these people will tell you, perhaps privately, is that it does not matter so much whether Jesus was born of a virgin mother. Ethical living is the real point. I am also quite sure that many Christian scholars are not bible thumpers, but rational people who are seriously seeking 'The Truth.' and are using the medium of religion to do it. I believe many are sincere, and to throw out what they are saying because it is centered on religion may be a mistake. The real point of my first post is that both religious philosophy and science are seeking the same Truth and that organized religion, with all its gingerbread, trimmings, and mythology matters little in the debate. I don't think it at all unusual that a person of faith and religious background enters a seminary with a backgound of simplistic beliefs and comes out a little more circumspect after they have actually studied the subject rather than simply believed it on faith and the strength of Sunday School lessons. That does make sense, as it should with any endeavor. It's called 'getting educated.'

I also quite understand your tone, which is rather blatantly accusatory. If you have a opposite case to be made, I'm quite sure you have the opportunity to do so, either here or elsewhere, bringing all your own experience and expertise to bear. I'm not really willing to enter into a debate with you over the suitability of my personal qualifications for writing on these subjects. Nobody else is required to do that. Take what I write at face value. This is hardly the place to argue with footnotes proving and documenting every phrase. If you can derive some value, that's great! If you don't 'believe' me, I don't really care that much. By all means, don't buy the book. Oh....wait!

 

[wicro]

I am curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion. If the most intellectual seminary students in most seminaries hold this belief, why do they attend a Christian seminary? It doesn't make a lot of sense. Were you a seminary student? Have you taught at a variety of seminaries? How did you come to know these facts?

Without wanting to speak for Schuyler, if you substitute the first 'more' for 'some' and the second 'most' for 'more' the paragraph makes much more(!) sense (Sorry Schuyler). Although I have no supporting evidence other than talking to some Christians and other of faith which would corroborate the statement. Religion offers far more than mere 'belief'. You have to take into consideration the supportive social role of the institution. For example where a community member may feel that ostracizing from there supportive network is a far more powerful phenomenological experience for them than an expression of their 'inner' belief system. Religion in a social/cultural sense has far more meaning than merely a belief system about 'God', it is negotiated with ritual, community spirit and other social factors, although obviously to more or less extent on the social biography of the person involved.


For instance an 'agnostic' may feel compelled to marry within a church despite there hostility to the institution of religion because of their cultural background but would we call him a hypocrite?

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

I didn't mean to come off as accusatory. Really, I am just interested in what you have to say. I was sure you had a good reason for saying that; I just wanted to know what it is. I certainly do not claim to have any expertise on the subject of biblical scholarship. However, I have read some biblical scholarship for lay-men type books, such as "Who Wrote the Bible," by Friedman, and most of Pagels' books, which are all great. I've never really thought of these biblical scholars who write for a non-religious audience as seminarians, is all. Perhaps that is my error.

Best wishes,

Alan

 

[TClaeys]

Good discussion.

I would just have to comment that the rejection of a God is a belief. But of course that underscores the confusion, or at least spectrum, of what one might constitue as God. I think that Dawkins and others prefer to nail the religions and the belief of personal gods. Ones that have some involvement with you personally.

I believe in god, but I couldn't begin to tell you much about him/her/it. I'd say that some sort of entity may be responsible. When we look to science, there are big questions that still remain unanswered. Something from nothing. Life from non-life. The tiniest speck of particles that acts differently based on what we do. The splendor of the universe and the ability of think about the splendor of our universe. Consciousness. UFO's (ha) On and on. And while we think we can explain these things(at least some of them), the explanation and it's impication always gets pushed deeper and deeper.

So while a personal god might not exist, it doesn't preclude the possibility of some creator. In turn, why reject the potential for such a creator?? The hard core atheists just reject it. I'm not sure why although I think it is because of the religious favor of such a personal god. I think this notion enrages them enough to counter with the anti-religion, anti-personal god, notion. Which is, as far as I can see it, a belief. Agnostacism seems to be the only "I don't know" option. Maybe there is and maybe there is not. Atheists don't take this position.

But then again, it depends on what you mean by "god". Are we talking Jesus or some kind of original "force"?

 

[conor]

But then again, it depends on what you mean by "god". Are we talking Jesus or some kind of original "force"?

I would say the general discussion of God, rather than specific religious beliefs, or any kind of personal God.

Force - that's a good way of putting it. I like the ideas of pantheism, which say that spirit is imbued in every aspect of nature. In that sense, God, spirit or force is just about as personal as you can get! I'm really not a fan of a detached creator.

Good point about atheism being a downright rejection of any sort of God, like some sort of opposite-creating-mirror to the belief in a God which is a belief system in itself!

IMO agnosticism is the only rational way to go, and is a truly scientific way of approaching a topic which has no real verifiable answer.

I do like gnosticism, which states that knowledge of a God resides within us. Einstein talked of having flashes of inspiratation when coming up with his theory of relativity - essentially while pondering about the nature of the universe.

The most important thing is that God is a metaphor for all that we see around us. I think that metaphor is incredibly powerful - probably it is the basis for all language. I think that in the past people understood that the word God was a metaphor, as religious thought, philosophical thought and scientific theory went hand in hand (ie. ancient Greece).

 

[mikepc]

Richard Dawkins is exactly that, a preacher for the dogma of Science and reason. He is every bit as fervent and 'preachy' as his religious contemporaries and he delivers a message that is one of logic and scientific method, rather than faith. He seeks to engage the religious and

To me it all boils down to this dichotomy: The religious are satisfied in being convinced in something that has no absolute proof (and probably doesn't exist), while the atheists are satisfied being convinced in something that could be (and probably is) absolutely wrong. The religious claim they have answers without even knowing the right questions to ask, while the scientists offer nothing but deeper and more cryptic questions leading us down a twisted labyrinth of mysteries no one will ever be able to truly solve.

The problem that humanity struggles with in nearly every facet of our existence is not choosing science over religion, but rather how much science and religion they will cherry pick to make sense of it all. The preachers want this to end. They want the people to choose their side, support their cause.. So they declare and defend their positions to the best of their ability. Even if they themselves cherry pick in their private life. The preacher for instance will harness science to use a computer, forecast his budget, estimate the number of attendees at a lecture, maybe even predict his gas mileage, while abandoning the methods that brought him these things at the first thought of the afterlife. Why? Because he needs it to make sense of it all. He needs God to fill the space in the bricks, while Dawkins' dogma offers no mortar, only bricks.

As science provides more and more real and accessible answers instead of blatantly wrong (eg. The Sound Barrier is unbreakable because we don't know how to break it) or cryptic (String Theory) answers people will choose from its bowl more and more instead of the bowl of religion and mysticism. There will be less need for mortar as the bricks fit neatly together,

Until them, we will cherry pick what we believe, no matter how loud the guy on the soap box is.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

I did two years of research into Christianity as preparation for a book I was going to write, pretty much along the lines of the DaVinci Code, but Brown beat me to it (in spades! I admit to complete defeat.)

My conclusions are very much in line with the DaVinci Code novel.

You can't be serious. Educated, well-read, well-traveled people can come to hold some pretty bizarre conclusions about various topics. Here's proof.

My research has led me to believe it is likely Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene She was rich enough to bank roll his entire operation. He knew exactly what he was doing throwing out the money changers to incur the wrath of the authorities. He survived the crucifixion with the help of Joseph of Arimathea and managed to fake his resurrection. He and Mary likely had children and we are likely descendents--not that it matters. 2000 years is quite enough time for us all to be cousins. Do the math.

Laughable ... especially the part about Jesus inciting the authorities to crucify him so he could fake his resurrection--a calculated move to further advance his lucrative "operation"?--which you follow later with ...

... it does not matter so much whether Jesus was born of a virgin mother. Ethical living is the real point.

And that's what your manipulating, money-grubbing, resurrection-faking Jesus is really all about: ethical living.

Look, theologians are supposed to do scholarship, study and debate. Extremist cliches of theologians don't decide what Christianity is. That's not how it works. Crossan and the rest can have their "courageous" little opinions about the historical Christ and bash the Pope, but the Church magisterium is the body that ultimately has the authority to discern truthfulness in matters of faith and morals, after reflecting upon the work the theologians present to them. Of course many members of the magisterium are top-flight theologians--Benedict XVI being one of the brightest of those stars--but the nature of the office they hold and the authority they are the custodians of makes all the difference.

Just as there are fruitcake medical doctors who make off-beat medical claims of their own and continually swing baseball bats at the "establishment" to satisfy their egos or whatever, the world of theology is no different. Anyone can write a book. You've got to make your reading list wisely.

If anyone would like a large pool of reliable resources they can draw from to learn more, I would recommend bookmarking Dr. Scott Hahn's website, and visiting the links under his "Tools for Biblical Studies."

If you can derive some value, that's great! If you don't 'believe' me, I don't really care that much.

Whatever

He is NOT your enemy!​