The God / Dawkins Delusion

D

DannyL

Wild Horses
Incidentally, while we are banging on about this subject, one of the big reasons I don't like the Dorks on religion is because he doesn't present anything alternative in it's place that attempts to address some of it's concerns. What does it mean to be human and alive? How can I live a good life? This is why I've got more time for humanism than outright atheism as at least it's an attempt to assert some positive values.

Obviously one doesn't need religion to do this, but simply putting scientific enterprise and method in the place of religion as some do misses the point and blinds us to questioning science, it's goals and conclusions.

We gave my Dad a humanist funeral and felt we'd honoured his life in a way that respected his memory. There was a feeling there for life's emotional tone which I don't find in Dawkins work. Religion can and does address these concerns and until similar matters are addressed as part of the "work" of atheism, relgion will always have a hold on us.
 
subvert47

subvert47

I don't fight, I run away
DannyL said:
Incidentally, while we are banging on about this subject, one of the big reasons I don't like the Dorks on religion is because he doesn't present anything alternative in it's place that attempts to address some of it's concerns. What does it mean to be human and alive? How can I live a good life? This is why I've got more time for humanism than outright atheism as at least it's an attempt to assert some positive values.
Click to expand...

Actually, Dawkins discusses all these concerns — albeit with the primary aim of refuting religion's right to answer them.

DannyL said:
Obviously one doesn't need religion to do this, but simply putting scientific enterprise and method in the place of religion as some do misses the point and blinds us to questioning science, it's goals and conclusions.
Click to expand...

Dawkins isn't putting science in religion's place exactly, and he certainly isn't holding it up as something definite and concrete to be accepted blindly and unquestioningly. On the contrary, science is about explaining things and its conclusions are justified by evidence — or if the evidence is later overturned then science is corrected.
 
D

DannyL

Wild Horses
subvert47 said:
Actually, Dawkins discusses all these concerns — albeit with the primary aim of refuting religion's right to answer them..
Click to expand...

I have't really seen him do this, the main thing that stick in my mind is that strong distaste for the irrational as I mentioned above but then again I've not read The God Delusion (though I am open to the possibility of doing so!) A lot of the time the best argument is not an frontal attack, it's simply presenting a strong and satisfying alternative position. I can see this in humanism, I don't see this in atheist vs religion pissfights.

subvert47 said:
Dawkins isn't putting science in religion's place exactly, and he certainly isn't holding it up as something definite and concrete to be accepted blindly and unquestioningly. On the contrary, science is about explaining things and its conclusions are justified by evidence — or if the evidence is later overturned then science is corrected..
Click to expand...

I recognise he isn't doing that but he seems very hostile to the idea of science being questiioned from without. it seems to me obvious that science is a social process, and subject to influences from capital, ideology and so on - I don't ever recall seeing any acknowledgement of this in his work other than to lay into extreme and easy to critque/cariciture post-modernism. In contrast, one scientist I really rate because he has a deep and powerful grasp of these issues is Steven Rose. I think Rose's understanding of the arises out of a life long engagement with leftist politics as well as his partnership to sociologist Hilary Rose. The first few chapters of his book "Lifelines" blew my mind on that score. he's got an intense awareness of how scientific knowledge is a production - a kind of awareness that isn't even hinted at in Dawkin's books.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"one of the big reasons I don't like the Dorks on religion is because he doesn't present anything alternative in it's place that attempts to address some of it's concerns"
Click to expand...
I see no reason why he should
This line of criticism reminds me of Christians saying "Dawkins freely admits that his description gives rise to no morality" as though it's a weakness. Presumably Dawkins is trying to describe how things are and whether or not that description gives rise to morality or helps deal with questions of spirituality has no bearing on its accuracy whatsoever. If the way the world turns out to be doesn't chime with how one wants it to be then that's tough luck, not an argument for it not being that way.
A lot of criticisms of Dawkins centre on his abrasive stule and rudeness; well perhaps it would be better if he was less rude but really these arguments are nothing to do with the underlying substance. If you don't like the guy it's probably better to have a stab at proving him wrong than merely insulting him.
 
D

droid

Guest
Even though I have a lot of sympathy for Dawkins and his views, I still think that Southpark nailed him - or at least one aspect of his argument.
 
D

DannyL

Wild Horses
IdleRich said:
I see no reason why he should
You're right. No reason why he should do this at all - and it's a ridiculously "big ask", to ask one person to come up with a totally coherent system to replace religion. However, this isn't what I'm really asking - - "drawing attention to" might be a better phrase actually. If you look at the critical discourse on religion that we have - people questioning the value and utility of relgion and it's relevance to society - most of it seems to be quite angry attacks on religion like those of Dawkins and Hitchens. Their followers follow course, and what we end up is two polarised camps who can't hear each other. I think it would be far more useful and interesting to read about the positive values of a life lived without religion and how one fills an irreligous life with meaning and significance. Such a discouse would be much more likely to "convert" me to atheism anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
D

DannyL

Wild Horses
.... and perhaps more importantly would convert those who are actually religious.

I feel unless atheism recognises what religion actually does, in strengthening communities, providing indivduals wtih meaning, rituals for celebration, grieving etc. then it will always be defining itself as a negative and weakening it's cause. Just saying " ....but it isn't true" isn't enough.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
Just saying " ....but it isn't true" isn't enough.
Click to expand...
Maybe not but I think that showing something isn't true is a pretty big step on the way to defeating it as a worthwhile pursuit.
 
R

rob_giri

Well-known member
zhao said:
this guy may be educated about a lot of things but sounds like an ignorant fucking twat when he talks about religion.

As my friend put it very accurately - he's a materialist fundamentalist. But an absolute fundamentalist just the same.

This current trend of religion bashing is just completely fucking retarded.
Click to expand...

otm
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
no, it's not. Dawkins is a bit of a c**t. albeit a v. smart one. & I'm not the biggest fan of his self-appointed atheist spokesmanship (see also Hitchens, C.) but that's just a cheap attempt to fob off fundamentalism, w/all its attendant connotations, onto him. the difference being that scientists are willing to change their beliefs upon the presentation of contradictory evidence, while the word fundamental by definition precludes change under any circumstances.
 
Benny Bunter

Benny Bunter

Well-known member
Mr. Tea said:
I'm reading a novel at the moment about an English sailor who gets washed up in 1600s Japan, and has all sorts of adventures - the total dissimilarity between his culture and theirs is one of the main themes of the book.
Click to expand...

Samurai William? Amazing book.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I'll tell you what's "retarded": people who don't actually follow any one particular religion but nonetheless stick up for religion in general because they kind of 'like the idea of it', concentrating exclusively on what they see as its good points while conveniently ignoring all the manifold social evils that almost invariably accompany it.

Benny B said:
Samurai William? Amazing book.
Click to expand...

Nope, not heard of that - I meant Shogun by James Clavell. But it's a fictionalised account of real events, which could well have inspired other books I suppose.
 
Last edited:
nomadthethird

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Mr. Tea said:
I'll tell you what's "retarded": people who don't actually follow any one particular religion but nonetheless stick up for religion in general because they kind of 'like the idea of it', concentrating exclusively on what they see as its good points while conveniently ignoring all the manifold social evils that almost invariably accompany it.



Nope, not heard of that - I meant Shogun by James Clavell. But it's a fictionalised account of real events, which could well have inspired other books I suppose.
Click to expand...

Narcissists love religion. It makes them feel special, like they're an important part of very important goings on- like God Itself is shining a light directly on them. Since narcissists like the idea of ideal love, but have no interest in actually experiencing mutual or reciprocal love, God is their perfect foil. The concept of God stands for "ideal love" as a kind of floating signifier, in a sort of "universal" way... but since there is no actual God, the narcissist is free to project his or her own ego into the sky. This is the only kind of "love" narcissists can handle, because it doesn't preclude their own sense of control and mastery over their life situation. They love themselves, and simply troll for people who make them feel god-like and powerful. (Good looking people, people other people seem to want, but they never choose someone because they actually care about them.) Then they suck them dry, using their energy to fuel their own personal self-love project.

The type of people who don't really have much truck with religion but 'believe' or go to church anyway because they like the idea of what religion means to people are, a lot of them, just plain narcissistic.

The truth hurts. Very few people want to confront the fact that they're worm food or at best an interesting but temporary sludge on what will be RNA's billions of years, less than a blip in space-time.
 
Last edited:
luka

luka

Well-known member
oh yes the cold hard light of science that only the very brave and strong are able to stand... how noble.... how self-agrandising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top