The God / Dawkins Delusion

luka

Well-known member
im all for a bot of science, wonderful stuff. not really into religion per se. not terribly interested in morality. i am into metaphor though and i think its important. religious texts and myths are full of good metaphor and illuminate/structure experience, actual life experience, what it feels like, in a way that science doesn't (doesn't intend to, doesn't need to, doesn't want to)
its not a thing where you say either you beleive in science or you believe in religion. one doesn't cancel the other out any more than science and art are opposed.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
i am into metaphor though and i think its important. religious texts and myths are full of good metaphor and illuminate/structure experience, actual life experience, what it feels like, in a way that science doesn't (doesn't intend to, doesn't need to, doesn't want to)

Quality
 

Dusty

Tone deaf
you beleive in science or you believe in religion. one doesn't cancel the other out any more than science and art are opposed.

No, they just begin to overlap in a really horribly messy way when you get into the details.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Since areligious value judgements cannot be definitive, atheist claims to have the moral upper-hand are ultimately comparatively weak. A believer would see renouncing God as equivalent to renouncing the means by which they could confidently say that something is immoral.

Don't you realize that your simply asserting this again and again doesn't make it so?

I'm sorry, but insisting that your imaginary friend co-signs all of your ethical decisions, and thus makes them "moral", is on the same level as believing in santa claus, intellectually.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Yes, people might then accept that the story that religions might tell is false, but that still leaves itches that need to be scratched - and because science does little to help people to scratch the itch, religion would recur as a creative response to existential angst, justified not by rigour but by results.

But why is that 'itch' there for some people and not others? I don't think there's an 'atheism gene', or that I'm any different in my fundamental biological make-up from the next Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever (although I'd be pained to extend that list to Scientologists, I'd have to admit...) - and if you extend that to societies or nations, why are there some countries where pretty much everyone follows one religion or another, while in others like the UK you have widespread atheism/agnosticism? Whatever the spokespeople for established religion (and their non-specific-theism running dogs ;)) may say about religion fullfilling the kind of 'itch' you talk about, why do a large proportion of people around the world now apparently feel able to face life without believing in Flying Spaghetti Monsters?

Also, I appreciate the argument Dan and others have made, here and elsewhere, about religion providing moral guidance for want of a better phrase, but I have two big problems with that. One is that it kind of implies that atheists are necessarily immoral, or at best amoral, and in consequence likely to rob, rape or murder the next person they run across; the other is that the moral guidance offered by religion quite often fucking stinks, to put it bluntly - whether it's women getting stoned to death in Iran for adultery or Christian fundies in America picketing the funerals of Aids victims. The UDHR may frequently be regarded as scarcely worth the paper it's written on when considered against the sum total of appalling wickedness and inequality that goes on all over the world, but I think it can only be considered a step in the right direction when you consider the alternative (other than complete lawlessness), namely theocracy.

Edit: some great points from nomad in the last couple of pages - had to laugh at "what men think is always more rational that women and other men think". :)

Edit2: I see where luka's coming from too, but I think you can get that benefit of metaphor, psychic structuring or whatever from myths without literally believing them to be true. In zhao's thread about the 'lack of the mysterious' he made some (pretty silly, I thought) point about the wonder-filled world view of magic realist authors versus the drab, grey, soulless (ad nauseam) universe espoused by us unimaginative rationalists, and he name-checked a few authors including Rushdie. Because obviously the Cambridge-eduated, Booker-winning author literally believes in ghosts, witches, prophecies and all the rest of it. I mean, seriously! You can enjoy fairytales without needing the fairies to be real, can't you? I think this is one area where Hinduism and Buddhism maybe do a little better than the Abrahamic religions, because a lot of the stories in their ancient scripture are so transparently fantastical (I mean psychedelically fantastical, in contrast to the common-or-garden fantastical mythology in the Bible/Qu'ran) that there's a case to be made that it's implicitly understood that they're not literally true, but are metaphors for deep spiritual truths, whatever you think of those. So followers of those religions might be susceptible to all sorts of other superstitions and quackery, but they don't have this crazy insistence on ideas that have been flatly disproven, like the world being 6,000 years old.
 
Last edited:

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Don't you realize that your simply asserting this again and again doesn't make it so?

Not necessarily, but your saying that doesn't make my assertion wrong either. After all, there are no absolute values in a Godless universe.

I'm sorry, but insisting that your imaginary friend co-signs all of your ethical decisions, and thus makes them "moral", is on the same level as believing in santa claus, intellectually.

The factual correctness of the belief doesn't matter - it's the effect that it has on what people do that matters.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
in fact, working in a scientific laboratory doing research provides all of those things (except perhaps "orientation", which is too broad/vague a term to know exactly what you mean by it w/o further elaboration).

True, but what about people who don't work in the field? What I'm asking is, if science is a "worldview" (and I may be mis-representing whichever posters mentioned it upthread), what does it offer the layperson, in making sense of his/her life? That is a what a worldview implies, surely? What does a scientific worldview have to say about the areas traditionally occupied by religion - community, celebration, a sense of personal meaning and connection and so forth. I would argue that science doesn't address these areas particularly well, there are areas of human experience that aren't served well by science-as-worldview and atheism.

Humanism though, is a different kettle of fish.



also, why must atheism be a "project"? why can't just be, yunno, atheism? it doesn't follow at all that denying something means one has to then come up with an alternate thing to replace what's being denied.

Depends how successful you want it to be surely? I have no problem with what you're saying but it seems to me that Dawkins and other prominent atheist wish to very much "advance their cause". I'm pointing out some other reasons why I don't think they will succeed.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
After all, there are no absolute values in a Godless universe.

c = 299,792,458m/s

(SO glad I had to look that up past the first three figures...)

The factual correctness of the belief doesn't matter - it's the effect that it has on what people do that matters.

That's no reason not to challenge those beliefs, though. Beliefs aren't immutable; no-one still worships the old Greek or Egyptian gods, and the core creeds of all the older world religions have undergone a lot more mutation over the thousands of years since they started than most of their current representatives are probably prepared to admit.
 
Last edited:

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
But why is that 'itch' there for some people and not others?

Other posters have proposed a number of religion's uses. As for the lack of blanket coverage, it doesn't matter - what is important is that there will always be people for whom it performs an important function, and they will prove very resistant to any attempts to divert them (cf. many communist states' failed attempts to atheise their populations).

Being generally uber-rational/intelligent or scientifically-minded doesn't preclude practising either, as I know absurdly-qualified folk who have either continued to practise their faith or even taken religion up in adulthood - they must have had an itch that they couldn't find any other way to scratch, right?

Also, I appreciate the argument Dan and others have made, here and elsewhere, about religion providing moral guidance for want of a better phrase, but I have two big problems with that. One is that it kind of implies that atheists are necessarily immoral, or at best amoral, and in consequence likely to rob, rape or murder the next person they run across

Well, atheists are taken to consider their own values as not-absolute, personal. So it might well stand to reason to find atheists less trustworthy:

“…those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all” (J. Locke, Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689)

To the religious, atheists can be considered less trustworthy than believers from their least favoured competing faith!

While 33.5% of Americans would disapprove if their child married a Muslim (the second least popular group in America) an amazing 47.3% would disapprove if their child married an atheist. ref. Should Believers Trust Atheists?

This shows that it is not the content of the moral values that matters most, it is the fact that a.n. other believers are likely to believe in the existence of absolute right and wrong.

I think you can get that benefit of metaphor, psychic structuring or whatever from myths without literally believing them to be true.

Why would that be the case? I would imagine that this would be a case of 'you get back what you put in.'
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
But why is that 'itch' there for some people and not others?

Complex question, innit? And not one arguably on the level of individual biology! I'd hazard a guess that it's to do with the society that surrounds people. We are well-off, reasonably well educated, in a scientifically literate culture that privileges individualism, moreover one that has been writing religious explanations out of the picture for the last 150 years or so. Some combination of of this range of factors must feed into our atheism (I can describe myself as an atheist quite happily btw), while a person in a more religious culture is enmeshed in similarly complex web of discourses and relationships that feed into their religious beliefs and practices. I doubt very much someone is going to abandon all this just 'cos "it's not true" - I'm too knackered to write much more (stag do related) but I like the way this thread is going - because it's heading towards complexity - life as lived - rather than reductive black and white posturing (stupid comments about magical sky wizards aside).
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
Tea, you should have a read of this:

http://www.happinesshypothesis.com/

Got lots of say about the positive value of religion. I know it looks like a horrible self-help book but it's very good - and it's all scientific with numbers and everything! So your eyes wont' fall out if you read it :p
 

Richard Carnage

Well-known member
Well, atheists are taken to consider their own values as not-absolute, personal. So it might well stand to reason to find atheists less trustworthy.'

Hang on. Agnostics (of which you consider yourself) are taken to consider their own values as non-absolute. Atheists consider their views to be absolute.

I think the "trustworthy" issue is an awful hypothesis, nevertheless.
 

Richard Carnage

Well-known member
“…those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all” (J. Locke, Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689)

Locke was an idiot when it came to religion anyway. He did a lot to advance the philosophy of science and the scientific method with his empiricist way of thinking, but his "logical" argument to prove the existence of God was laughable. His major flaw as a philosopher, in my opinion.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
What I'm asking is, if science is a "worldview" (and I may be mis-representing whichever posters mentioned it upthread), what does it offer the layperson, in making sense of his/her life?

first, off you -are-, in fact, badly misrepresenting science by referring to it as a worldview. at least in the sense you're using worldview, to mean a comprehensive metaphysical weltanschaaung, rather than just a general framework through which to view the world (which science can be/is). as to community, celebration, personal meaning, etc surely science itself in a technical sense has quite a bit to say, being as there are multiple scientific fields (psychology, sociology, various subbranches thereof) devoted to those things. I dunno what a scientific "worldview" has to say about them, mostly b/c there is no such thing as a comprehensive scientific worldview.

it is almost certain that there are areas of human experience not particularly well-addressed by atheism; it's also true that there are areas of human experience not well-addressed by religion. nothing is perfect, you see. your argument assumes many things, foremost that people need to be told by some kind of authority - religious, in this case - how to interact w/one another & define their place in the world. you're also assuming that people need an overarching metaphysical structure. well, there was community & celebration & personal meaning before there were ever gods, or organized religion at least. no gods, no masters, innit.

Depends how successful you want it to be surely?

I don't care how "successful" it is. it's not a competition. nor am I running atheism as some kind of small business.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
After all, there are no absolute values in a Godless universe.

well, Tea beat me to it, but I cannot resist b/c there are loads of absolute values in the Godless universe. like oh, I dunno, absolute zero.

(also, how are these abs vals defined yr God universe? cos wouldn't human interpretation of them always be imperfect, & thus not absolute? unless somebody had perfect knowledge of God, but that would make them God. I know Xtianity tries to sidestep this whole quandary w/the Trinity but I've always been less than impressed w/that particular piece of sophistry)
 
Last edited:

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Other posters have proposed a number of religion's uses.

which have, ahem, been shot down or at least rather easily found not to be exclusive to religion. conceding that there will always be some people, likely many, who derive comfort fm religion, tho not b/c of its inherent uniqueness but rather b/c of its placement in history/society/etc; obv there's no way to test but it is my contention that children born into a 100% religion-free society wouldn't spontaneously reconstruct it.

I know absurdly-qualified folk who have either continued to practise their faith or even taken religion up in adulthood - they must have had an itch that they couldn't find any other way to scratch, right?

this says, what exactly? one refers again to the presence of religion as a thing to take up. having an itch doesn't mean it's a religious itch, or a God itch.

Well, atheists are taken to consider their own values as not-absolute, personal. So it might well stand to reason to find atheists less trustworthy:

speaking of sophistry.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
But why is that 'itch' there for some people and not others...I'd hazard a guess that it's to do with the society that surrounds people...

well, of course

(stupid comments about magical sky wizards aside)

I will defend stupid comments about magical sky wizards until the day I die

I know it looks like a horrible self-help book but it's very good

:eek: (no, no I'm sure it is very good, Mr. L. it has numbers, after all)
 

Dr Awesome

Techsteppin'
obv there's no way to test but it is my contention that children born into a 100% religion-free society wouldn't spontaneously reconstruct it.

well, I doubt very much they'd spring into full papal regalia, but religions, like other memes - evolve and develop over time. Provided the children grew up in a world where things could be explained using science and reason they'd have no reason to invent an omnipotent sky god - But, if like early man all they saw was lightning and thunder they'd probably eventually anthropomorphise the various aspects of the world around them which they couldn't explain into spirits and gods.
 
Top