Dawkins hits 'em hard - again.

[Sibling DavidH]

Once again the good professor tells them what's what:   
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7007065.ece
Personally I agree with the argument, but he could be a bit more subtle.  For example, he could assault the Archbish of C with a baseball bat or dump a trailer-load of pig manure on the steps of Westminster Abbey.   

[Opsa]

What an hilarious read, DavidH! When I imagine it as some guy sitting next to me at a bar ranting and raving with tongue in cheek,  I can see myself slamming my glass into his every now and then and shouting "Damn straight!" several times before asking someone to call a cab to take me home.

[Aggie]

Bah, I have a perpetual snit on against Dawkins.   

The article kind of reinforces my opinion that he is only interested in challenging religion in the form(s) where it meets his premise that it is an inherently negative force. If the New Testament had been, y'know, actually written by Jesus and never edited or modified for sociopolitical reasons, then he might have a point.  The origins of Christianity (and many other faiths) are IMHO cloudy enough to allow personal interpretation.  I'm not saying he is necessarily wrong in his argument, but I do feel it's wrong-headed to encourage 'milder-mannered faith-heads' to take up the negative aspects of certain segments of Christianity, simply to reinforce his own personal views and give him a solid windmill to tilt at.

Besides this, from here it genuinely looks like he is rallying against the evolution of a meme over a couple of millennia. Really?  I mean, freakin' really, Dawkins? 

[Sibling DavidH]

He's doing a great job ... very, very badly.

[Aggie]

I tend to agree.  At least Mr. Henderson, when confronting odious extremism, presented a completely ridiculous idea in an apparently seriously manner (with a wink), effectively de-legitimizing and disempowering his opponents.  Mr. Dawkins, OTOH (and IMHO), is presenting a serious argument in a completely ridiculous manner, empowering and legitimizing his opponents; at the same time, he's alienating many of his potential or presumed allies (myself included, scientifical background and whatnot). 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Once again the good professor tells them what's what:   
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7007065.ece
Personally I agree with the argument, but he could be a bit more subtle.  For example, he could assault the Archbish of C with a baseball bat or dump a trailer-load of pig manure on the steps of Westminster Abbey.   

Thanks for that!

I thoroughly enjoyed reading it:  I think it's spot-on, dealing with some of the fundamental and basic problems with the religion.   Until those most basic of concepts are dealt with, there's always going to be a 'pat robertson' type exploiting the weakness of the belief-system.

Back when the best form of government humans had invented, was king-peasant, these concepts made a certain sort of sense.   Oaths of fealty, and all that.

Now?  When humans have come so far in the arena of self-governance?  It's time for religions to put away this silly concept of 'god-king', that is so fundamental to the basics of modern christianity.

If the conservatives can rewrite the bible, why not the moderates and liberals?   To eliminate the 'juice' that people like Dawkins has, in critical analysis of it.

[Griffin NoName]

He doesn't mince his words, even if he minces everything else

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Well, as said before he isn't precisely toadfish material, but I have to admit that I agree with a good percentage of his argument.

It also goes about what we talked in the civility thread, which reminds me of these words from the mouth of Sting:

  "you said the meek shall inherit the earth, how long will they keep it?"

Perhaps is because I'm tired of watching in despair how the fundies are winning in the US despite loosing badly a year ago, but there is something to his argument about the regular coyness in the progressive speech, tolerance and understanding cannot become indifference and aloofness. Someone has to say that the whole thing is wrong, that the words of love and hope don't absolve the words of guilt and -in many cases- outright hate, found in the scripture. When someone comes to my door convinced with absolute certainty of his/her "truth", why is it wrong to spell mine? If I have a deeply felt conviction why is it wrong to held such conviction publicly? And in that aspect I do respect the guy, his convictions are deeply held and he isn't coy about them, like saying: "if you feel no respect for my beliefs I wont have any for yours. If my beliefs offend you, know that yours offend me too."

It may be confrontational and perhaps Aggie is right in that it will alienate potential allies and be counterproductive, but I can't shake the feeling of respect for his guts saying something that I want to say too but don't have the balls to say myself.

[Aggie]

It may be confrontational and perhaps Aggie is right in that it will alienate potential allies and be counterproductive, but I can't shake the feeling of respect for his guts saying something that I want to say too but don't have the balls to say myself.

Ayuh, I guess I just take a utilitarian perspective on it.  I just don't think he's doing the maximum good with his influence. If he was Joe Sixpack I'd not begrudge him his rant, but he is an influential scientist and this bent, IMHO, undermines his credibility. Or maybe it's just not my statement.  We have much less overt Evangelism here.  I recall on at least one occasion being told not to talk about Satan so much because it wigged out our Christian friends (reading LaVey ). I certainly wasn't persecuted for it.

[Sibling DavidH]

    What Aggie said.

[Opsa]

Yeah, but if he was more moderate, who would pay attention? I think there's a place for this sort of person, grating though they may sound.

I would never say such stuff either, because it seems unreasonably harsh and I don't believe "back atchya" rudeness is a good idea, it just continues what looks like unproductive confrontation. But when I first read it, I thought he was being funny, a la Steven Colbert.

[Aggie]

But when I first read it, I thought he was being funny, a la Steven Colbert.

Hmmm....  didn't consider that. I haven't heard him speak enough to judge, but the bits I've read suggest he doesn't approach the subject with humour, generally.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Yeah, but if he was more moderate, who would pay attention?

I guess that's the point, it reminds me of how weak and nondescript the hired voice from the left (Colmes, Juan Williams) in Faux news is. If the fundies yell nonsense, perhaps you have to raise your tone to be heard.

But when I first read it, I thought he was being funny, a la Steven Colbert.

Hmmm....  didn't consider that. I haven't heard him speak enough to judge, but the bits I've read suggest he doesn't approach the subject with humour, generally.

I've seen him in a video at TED which is tongue-in-cheek although he is death serious about the subject.

[The Meromorph]

Well, as said before he isn't precisely toadfish material, but I have to admit that I agree with a good percentage of his argument.

It also goes about what we talked in the civility thread, which reminds me of these words from the mouth of Sting:

  "you said the meek shall inherit the earth, how long will they keep it?"

Perhaps is because I'm tired of watching in despair how the fundies are winning in the US despite loosing badly a year ago, but there is something to his argument about the regular coyness in the progressive speech, tolerance and understanding cannot become indifference and aloofness. Someone has to say that the whole thing is wrong, that the words of love and hope don't absolve the words of guilt and -in many cases- outright hate, found in the scripture. When someone comes to my door convinced with absolute certainty of his/her "truth", why is it wrong to spell mine? If I have a deeply felt conviction why is it wrong to held such conviction publicly? And in that aspect I do respect the guy, his convictions are deeply held and he isn't coy about them, like saying: "if you feel no respect for my beliefs I wont have any for yours. If my beliefs offend you, know that yours offend me too."

It may be confrontational and perhaps Aggie is right in that it will alienate potential allies and be counterproductive, but I can't shake the feeling of respect for his guts saying something that I want to say too but don't have the balls to say myself.

I agree with Zono here. Indeed ,I agree with Dawkins.

I am intolerant of intolerance.  I do not believe that good people should remain silent in the face of evil. I respect the rght of people to believe what they wish. I do not therefore silence my own beliefs, my own opinions.
I do not seek confrontation for its own sake. I will confront evil whenever I can.
Dawkins did not set out to fight 'fundies'. He was repeatedly attacked, misquoted, and insulted. And in response he speaks truth and honesty.
It is difficult to believe the vileness of thr ;religious right' in America if you have not encountered it daily. The targets of Dawkins righteous wrath are not 'fringe groups, they are mainstream americans who hold sway over millions of peoples hearts and minds. They are often portrayed (particularly in European media) as 'off the wall' cranks and freaks, they are not, they are commonplace. loud, and influential in American life. They are utterly opposed to education, and science, they are sincere in their belief that it is fundamentally wrong to ask questions. I am convinced that they are potentially fatal to our civilisation, to 'the enlightenment', and to all the progress humanity has made in its name.
They gather in millions of dollars from their 'flock', they fund 'universities' dedicated to the maintenance of ignorance, they fund much of the political activity in the US, they have huge influence in the US government, and they have no shame, whatsoever.

Dawkin's analysis that it is the acceptance of 'revealed truth', over acquired and tested knowlledge, that enables them, is IMO correct. The unwillingness of 'ordinary decent people' to challenge other's beliefs allows these poisonous endevors to prosper and grow.

I do not know how to stop them. I fear for humanity.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

... I do not know how to stop them. I fear for humanity.

As do I.

The rest of your post?  I also agree with-- well said.

[Sibling DavidH]

I also agree with all that The Meromorph says there, but my objection - like Aggie's - is simply that Dawkins does not conduct his campaign as advantageously as he could.  A little more subtlety might win him more friends.  We so often see him attacked not for his views, but for his manner.  BTW there is a long-running thread on this over on the RDF, but it has currently degenerated into a brawl.

[Opsa]

...and important, enlightened points being lost into brawls is precisely what we're trying to figure out how not to do, here.

Mero's post is beautiful.

I am intolerant of intolerance.  I do not believe that good people should remain silent in the face of evil. I respect the rght of people to believe what they wish. I do not therefore silence my own beliefs, my own opinions.
I do not seek confrontation for its own sake. I will confront evil whenever I can.
Dawkins did not set out to fight 'fundies'. He was repeatedly attacked, misquoted, and insulted. And in response he speaks truth and honesty.
It is difficult to believe the vileness of thr ;religious right' in America if you have not encountered it daily. The targets of Dawkins righteous wrath are not 'fringe groups, they are mainstream americans who hold sway over millions of peoples hearts and minds. They are often portrayed (particularly in European media) as 'off the wall' cranks and freaks, they are not, they are commonplace. loud, and influential in American life. They are utterly opposed to education, and science, they are sincere in their belief that it is fundamentally wrong to ask questions. I am convinced that they are potentially fatal to our civilisation, to 'the enlightenment', and to all the progress humanity has made in its name.
They gather in millions of dollars from their 'flock', they fund 'universities' dedicated to the maintenance of ignorance, they fund much of the political activity in the US, they have huge influence in the US government, and they have no shame, whatsoever.

Dawkin's analysis that it is the acceptance of 'revealed truth', over acquired and tested knowlledge, that enables them, is IMO correct. The unwillingness of 'ordinary decent people' to challenge other's beliefs allows these poisonous endevors to prosper and grow.

I do not know how to stop them. I fear for humanity.

We can't let the perpetuation of ignorance continue.

My turn to rant.

One problem is that so many people are afraid of not being seen as "normal". So how do we show them that these coercive organizations are using them and not on their side at all? All they want is numbers, bodies, and cash. They are told that by joining them they magically become "good" and everyone else is "bad" and this is NOT the truth. A lot of these followers really are good people, but they are fearful. They are scared of death, scared of life, scared of "hell".  It's awful how scared they are. They'll do anything to find any comfort.

What can we do? First, we have to help people to be less scared. Fear is a tool that is being used against people's better judgement. If you concentrate on wars, terrorism, disease, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, fires and the like, you WILL be scared. But they happen all the time, just like death. They are just a part of life. And weirdly enough, they are a very small part of life. If we're not focusing on dread, we can put some of our attention on the things that make life worth living, and these things are all around us.

We shouldn't feel guilty that we're ignoring our duties of woe when we watch birds fly, or hold a baby or watch shooting stars or listen to the ocean or pet a warm animal or marvel at a rock formation or laugh or stand in a waterfall or sit in the sunshine or love the heck out of each other. I could go on and on about what we can do instead of being fearful, because the wonderful is all around us. If we take frequent breaks from being fearful we will be less likely to be manipulated. I know this is simplistic, but it's a start.

Mero is inspiring me. Next time someone tells me I'm going to Hell because I don't go to church, I will smile and say that I am not afraid of Hell. I believe hell is here- it is the wars and disasters, and heaven is here- it is love and joy, and we have both all the time. I cannot be threatened or lured by what I all ready have around me. I can however, choose to deal not with abstract promises, but with reality. And I can refuse to be called "Godless" just because I don't call the Great Spirit by the same name as they do. I am Godful! God-filled! I am a bloody Twinkie and God is my creamy filling, fer god's sake. Same God, different name. Just because I view the Great Everything not as some angry spectral person, but instead as the sheer joy of life is just a matter of myth and language, as far as I'm concerned. And I haven't been struck by lightening once. Do I look like I'm being punished as I smile in the sun, glad to just be here?

People should not be afraid to evolve or be enlightened. We in the U.S. have quite literally been living in another Dark Age. We need to know this. You hear people talk about "the end" in 2012? That, I think, will be the beginning of the end of these Dark Ages. We need to help people see that this will be an end, but also a beginning.

I shall now fall through the decaying pulpit and roll down a green hill, laughing all the way.

[Sibling DavidH]

That's another beautiful post.   
Two observations:

1.  What you advocate there is right and important, but don't forget that humour - mockery, satire and the circulation of suitable jokes - is also a very powerful weapon.  Let's not neglect it.  It chimes in with your concept of 'challenging beliefs', as well.

2.  Over here in Europe we don't have anything like the problem with these fundies that you have in the States.  Not yet.  But it's coming, bit by bit.  In the UK some privately-funded 'academies' are already teaching creationism as science.  They deny it publicly whilst undercover reporting has proved it.  Darlica told us that they're now in Sweden, too.  If  Europe doesn't get ready now, the whole problem will suddenly explode in our faces.  Time to raise awareness.

[Opsa]

I agree, humor is important, because humor requires thinking. I'm not so sure about mockery though, unless perhaps it is understood by all involved to be very gentle and good-natured ribbing. Mockery is often seen as disrespect, and can make people defensive.

[Sibling DavidH]

Yes, the word "mockery" was a bit strong.  I mean that we should not hesitate to show active disrespect for the beliefs, but of course not for the believers.  Problem there, of course - people often take things personally.  You have to play it by ear.

[Aggie]

I mean that we should not hesitate to show active disrespect for the beliefs, but of course not for the believers. 

'Beliefs', IMHO might be a little broad.  It's more the brainwashing and behaviour, and most especially the disrespect for other beliefs, than for all beliefs. I hope that we can help others to explore the possibilities that extend from the core reference points of their beliefs (written or otherwise) and find their own interpretations, rather than unthinkingly following an 'official' or 'traditional' interpretation - that's what bothers me about this particular Dawkins article. If you don't disrespect the beliefs of others, I think you are less inclined to disrespect others in general and more inclined to see the similarities instead of focusing on the differences.

OTOH, the subtle approach, while a great tool for daily interactions, only gets so far in less-than-subtle situations.  The Toadfish foghorn is meant to be blown passionately*.


_{*the biological version is actually a mating call, but we use it for rallying to protest (and occasionally to dinner).}

[Griffin NoName]

Dawkin's analysis that it is the acceptance of 'revealed truth', over acquired and tested knowlledge, that enables them, is IMO correct. The unwillingness of 'ordinary decent people' to challenge other's beliefs allows these poisonous endevors to prosper and grow.

I do not know how to stop them. I fear for humanity.

Yes.

It seems to me incredible the damage that religion is still doing in the world.

Dawkins is brave to stand up and be counted. And his writing is entertaining too.

[Bluenose]

I was always under the impression that Australia was relatively immune to the predations of the fundie brigade since Aussies as a rule have fairly effective bullshit detectors and since colonisation we have a reputations for being a fairly irreligious lot.  Certainly there is nothing here that even begins to approach the ilk of the so called "middle America".  However the fundamentalists have been making inroads into our society using the Australian tolerance against us.  It is generally considered here that one's belief's are one's own business and Aussies do not much appreciated proselytising efforts by others.  However, this politeness and general unwillingness to criticise other people's beliefs means that these people for the most part go unchallenged.  I am not convinced that this is a good idea.

Added to this is the fact that as the pace of life grow more hectic and people find themselves stretched this way and that many people simply do not take the time to reflect deeply on many things.  Rather than think about the big questions, as Douglass Adams put it: of Life, The Universe and Everything; many people are happy to allow all the heavy lifting type thinking to bedone by somebody else.  This would not be so bad if the ones putting out ideas into the marketplace were the rational people, but so often the ones making the most noise about having the "truth" are those with the most tenuous grip on it.

Combine these with an education system that leaves students with very poor understanding of basic scientific principles and the rise of relativism where it is OK to believe in Astrology, numerology or fairies at the bottom of the garden and everyone is "entitled to their own reality, then I think we really do have a problem.

I have no problem with those people of faith who believe that their Creator, God, god or gods, Great Spirit or whatever is the underlying cause of the physical universe.  This is by its very nature an unprovable concept and something for which science can offer no insight into because it is in the end a philosophical idea, not a physical entity that can thus be tested for.  What I have really big problems with is those who think that their idea trumps reality.  If reality differs from their interpretation of some (usually) ancient book, then it is reality that is wrong.

These people are becoming increasingly strident and so I do nothave a problem with Richard Dawkins taking the stance he does.  For the record I agree with the positions he takes.  Sometimes I think he may be taking a slightly too aggressive stance, but whenever I have thought this I have found that investigation of the totality of what he has said  reveals that he has been the subject of one of the fundies' favourite pastimes, that of quote mining.  By taking statements out of context his words are often made to seem much more aggressive and confrontational than they really are.  This is no accident.  His opponents do not have any real arguments to use against him.  He persists in using logic and reason whilst all the time being assailed by the exact opposite.  I have read a number of his books, most recently The God Delusion and The Greatest Show On Earth.  He makes his case clearly and rationally and I agree forcibly.  However, is that unreasonable given the storm of disinformation that floods us everyday?  Now is not the time for subtle discourse amongst educated friends about the finer points of some aspect of the edge of science.  We are being assailed by those who seek to deny the very basic concepts of the scientific method.  If our civilisation is to survive we must meet this attack with greater force in order to prevail.  Instead of criticising Richard Dawkins for minor infractions of politeness, perhaps what we really should be doing is standing up beside him and saying that we too intend to stand for the use of logic and reason and against the forces of darkness.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Well, as said before he isn't precisely toadfish material, but I have to admit that I agree with a good percentage of his argument.

It also goes about what we talked in the civility thread, which reminds me of these words from the mouth of Sting:

  "you said the meek shall inherit the earth, how long will they keep it?"

Perhaps is because I'm tired of watching in despair how the fundies are winning in the US despite loosing badly a year ago, but there is something to his argument about the regular coyness in the progressive speech, tolerance and understanding cannot become indifference and aloofness. Someone has to say that the whole thing is wrong, that the words of love and hope don't absolve the words of guilt and -in many cases- outright hate, found in the scripture. When someone comes to my door convinced with absolute certainty of his/her "truth", why is it wrong to spell mine? If I have a deeply felt conviction why is it wrong to held such conviction publicly? And in that aspect I do respect the guy, his convictions are deeply held and he isn't coy about them, like saying: "if you feel no respect for my beliefs I wont have any for yours. If my beliefs offend you, know that yours offend me too."

It may be confrontational and perhaps Aggie is right in that it will alienate potential allies and be counterproductive, but I can't shake the feeling of respect for his guts saying something that I want to say too but don't have the balls to say myself.

I agree with Zono here. Indeed ,I agree with Dawkins.

I am intolerant of intolerance.  I do not believe that good people should remain silent in the face of evil. I respect the rght of people to believe what they wish. I do not therefore silence my own beliefs, my own opinions.
I do not seek confrontation for its own sake. I will confront evil whenever I can.
Dawkins did not set out to fight 'fundies'. He was repeatedly attacked, misquoted, and insulted. And in response he speaks truth and honesty.
It is difficult to believe the vileness of thr ;religious right' in America if you have not encountered it daily. The targets of Dawkins righteous wrath are not 'fringe groups, they are mainstream americans who hold sway over millions of peoples hearts and minds. They are often portrayed (particularly in European media) as 'off the wall' cranks and freaks, they are not, they are commonplace. loud, and influential in American life. They are utterly opposed to education, and science, they are sincere in their belief that it is fundamentally wrong to ask questions. I am convinced that they are potentially fatal to our civilisation, to 'the enlightenment', and to all the progress humanity has made in its name.
They gather in millions of dollars from their 'flock', they fund 'universities' dedicated to the maintenance of ignorance, they fund much of the political activity in the US, they have huge influence in the US government, and they have no shame, whatsoever.

Dawkin's analysis that it is the acceptance of 'revealed truth', over acquired and tested knowlledge, that enables them, is IMO correct. The unwillingness of 'ordinary decent people' to challenge other's beliefs allows these poisonous endevors to prosper and grow.

I do not know how to stop them. I fear for humanity.

This.

Fundies scare me. Absolutely terrify me because of what they can do to my (our) country (countries). Rush Limbaugh and his ilk claim the culture war was started by the left but I'll be damned if it was. Dawkins is right to say what he does, though I think I'd attack the other side less, or be less venomous when I said what he did.

...they are sincere in their belief that it is fundamentally wrong to ask questions.

This is why I left the RCC. Any belief system that tells me not to ask questions is one that I will not follow. It is literally a sin to have questioned your faith at all in the Church and one you're supposed to confess to.

[Swatopluk]

We would be better off with this God:

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/esq-god-monty-python-082509-lg-58458150.jpg
GOD:  Arthur!  Arthur, King of the Britons!  Oh, don't grovel!  If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people groveling.
ARTHUR:  Sorry--
GOD:  And don't apologize.  Every time I try to talk to someone it's "sorry this" and "forgive me that" and "I'm not worthy".  What are you doing now!?
ARTHUR:  I'm averting my eyes, oh Lord.
GOD:  Well, don't.  It's like those miserable Psalms-- they're so depressing.  Now knock it off!
ARTHUR:  Yes, Lord.

Not to forget Douglas Adams' Electric Monks (provided they are not given rifles).
---
Btw, in addition to Jehovah's witnesses there seems to be a new infestation of Latter Day Saints around these parts. I hope their holy underwear protects them against the cold.

[The Meromorph]

It's worth also noting that Dawkins reports receiving lots of mail from people who thank him for his outspoken voicing of their private views, and many from 'recovering fundies' who say, in effect, that his public statements validated their secret thoughts and gave them the courage to 'come out'.

[pieces o nine]

Holy ghost, it's Batman & Robin Dawkins & Hitchens!

I tend to agree with what Dawkins says, even when I find him overbearing, because I've been around the people he is standing up to and  (much like Klingons)  they do not recognize any fighting style other than in-your-face aggression.

As a Recovering Catholic™ when confronted with Xtreme! Churchianity!   I've challenged a few who really get into [publicly] suffering "joyfully" and loudly, compulsively thanking God for *everything* that inconveniences them as a means to glorifying him *even more*. (?) The kind who enthusiastically insist that all True Believers™ should be just panting for a shot at Christian martyrdom.

According to the Gospels, Jesus' prayer in Gethsemene could be summarized as, "On second thought, this sucks. Big Time. Look  at those useless whiners. I'd really, really, really like to change my mind, OK?"  While, apparently, sweating blood in pain and fear. He is never reported as saying, "Woot! This is going to be totally awesome! Thanks, Big Daddy!"

So, all these wannabe martyrs "rejoicing and praising God" at the thought of their own imminent, violent deaths. Are they trying to out-Jesus Jesus? Are they trying to be even holier than their god? Because once looked at it logically, it seems theologically --[and mentally]-- unsound.

So far, this approach has only elicited horrified scurrying away. 

I recommend it highly.