- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have a friend who’s Dad was a stake president, and went on a mission. He is not a big Richard Dawkins fan. He recently posted this on his facebook page… “The God of the Old Testament is 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.”
I would like to take these accusations one at a time.
When God said he was a jealous God, he was telling his followers to not worship Ba’al. Worshipers of Ba’al would get their Golden statues glowing hot, and put living babies on the alter. It wasn’t wrong for God to tell his followers to not worship other other Gods. If I really was the true God, and I had worked miracles, to prove it, then I would be jealous also if people started worshiping Ba’al. This accusation is stupid, and arrogant, and shows that he is not interested in seeing both sides of an issue. Anyone who spent more than a day looking into this issue would realize that Dawkins is an idiot… God cannot be jealous in the sense that you and I are… over people’s houses, and stuff, or the way that unpleasant characters are from history… this is just a stupid guy twisting words, to say how stupid his opponents are…
But if I am missing his point on jealousy, please tell me…
The “petty” thing holds a little more water for me… I’m thinking of those kids that made fun of Elijia and God sent a bear to eat them… that seems sort of petty, from the outside, but they must have needed it, we are not getting the whole story, or it was incorrectly translated, but I agree with Dawkins on this one, that given the text we have, we might be able to find some petty examples of God’s behavior… Also those people who tried to steady the ark… yes, they knew the rules, but its not like they were trying to do wrongly, they just saw it wobbling, and reached out to keep it from falling… of course only stupid people make conclusive decisions, without having all the evidence, but from just the text, it seems sort of petty to kill them for just trying to help… perhaps they were evil, and wanted to break the laws, but again, just from the text, I will concede this to Dawkins, unless someone has more evidence, or ideas…
“Unjust” goes with petty… the bears, the steading of the ark… however, if you look at the Old Testament as a whole, the God of the Old Testament is a big promoter of justice… the Solomon Story, about cutting the baby in half: this is a story that tries to get at the truth… The God of the Old Testament promotes justice, more than other books from that time… I would really like to look into it, and get a count of all the stories that seem to promote justice, and those that don’t. When Jacob stole the birth-right by tricking his Dad, that does not seem to promote justice… the children of Egypt being killed, just because Pharaoh was stupid does not seem to be just, the killing Sodom and Gamora is fine with me, we are told they were wicked, and God bent over backwards to save those who were righteous… I feel this is self-rightouse of me to start this argument, as though I am the first person to think about this… I know this argument has been going on for a couple of thousands of years… if the God of the Old Testament is just… but I would like to think that a group of amateurs like us could outline, much like Wikipedia, the best arguments for and against the justice of God, and that will continual refinement, we could outline and continually improve our representation of the arguments for and against the belief… One of the apostles said that to believe in God is to know that all the rules will be fair and their will be wonderful surprises. I agree. If you believe in God, you have to believe that eventually everything will make sense, but in the mean time, lets keep our humility, but do the best we can…
“unforgiving control-freak”. This gets me mad at Dawkins. He is just throwing mud to be man. What I want is Data. I want Dawkins to try and prove his point, and not just throw mud, and if we are right, I want us to prove it. I want to prove it once and for all… I want to gather all the best data, so that people in the future, will, with very little work, see the arguments made by both sides, well documented, researched, etc. Someone who creates and runs the universe is by definition in control. It is stupid to say that the person who bakes a cake, controls the heat, and ingredient too much. He should just let the oven do what it wants, and let the wheat go free…
“Control-freak” is a 3rd grade accusation, and proves why Dawkins should be ignored. However he is not ignored, and so when he makes substantial accusations, like, “unforgiving”, we have to put-up or shut up. Is the God of the Old Testament “unforgiving”. Who are major sinners that got a second chance in the Old Testament… he didn’t just Kill Pharaoh… he was always sending prophets to “warn” sinning countries. This seems forgiving of sin…
Well that’s enough for now: What do you think?
myclob wrote:I have a friend who’s Dad was a stake president, and went on a mission. He is not a big Richard Dawkins fan. He recently posted this on his facebook page…
Quote:“The God of the Old Testament is 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 accusation is stupid, and arrogant, and shows that he is not interested in seeing both sides of an issue. Anyone who spent more than a day looking into this issue would realize that Dawkins is an idiot… This gets me mad at Dawkins. He is just throwing mud to be man. What I want is Data. I want Dawkins to try and prove his point…”Control-freak” is a 3rd grade accusation, and proves why Dawkins should be ignored. However he is not ignored, and so when he makes substantial accusations, like, “unforgiving”, we have to put-up or shut up. Is the God of the Old Testament “unforgiving”…Well that’s enough for now: What do you think?
I’m not a big fan of Richard Dawkins either and I agree that he should be ignored in most cases but I think he actually has a point in this particular quote. To me the answer is not to try to defend the entire Old Testament as if belief in God or Jesus absolutely depends on it being 100% true but I think the real answer is simply to recognize that these books come from a different time and place and much of this probably should not be taken literally as the “word of God” in many cases.
As far as I’m concerned, the Old Testament is mostly a combination of myths, legends, and mostly human ideas that should generally be taken with a grain of salt. At least with the New Testament we can have a pretty good idea which parts were actually written by Paul, Luke, John, etc. and which were written by anonymous/unknown authors but in the case of the Old Testament it is very doubtful that Moses actually wrote all of the books he is credited with writing entirely in their current form, assuming he even existed as an actual historical figure. Who really knows that much about the other Old Testament authors either, to assume they should be trusted? This is why I like the Gideons’ Bible because the only books included from the Old Testament are Psalms and Proverbs which are relatively positive and feel-good reading compared to all the animal sacrifices, wars, and harsh punishments for all kinds of supposed sins we find in much of the Old Testament.
“As far as it is translated correctly” is a good blanket statement for the OT, imo. I also take very little of it literally – especially for purposes of learning and lessons that apply to me.
Dawkins gives English private school boys a bad name. Seriously, if he could get over his attitude, and stop preaching to the converted, he might get somewhere. I notice he’s fond of soft targets too. Many of the Gnostics believed that the OT God, Jehovah was an evil Demiurge who had imprisoned us in matter, and that Jesus was a different god, trying to free us from our material chains.
Interesting Catholic Encyclopedia article on this –
SamBee wrote:Dawkins gives English private school boys a bad name. Seriously, if he could get over his attitude, and stop preaching to the converted, he might get somewhere. I notice he’s fond of soft targets too.
Exactly, this quote is a typical example of Richard Dawkins basically preaching to the choir (other religion-hating atheists). It’s mostly a worthless straw man argument to all but the most strictly literal word-for-word believers in the Bible like maybe the JWs and hard-core fundamentalist Bible thumpers that typically aren’t going to listen to Dawkins anyway. Unfortunately, there is also a fairly strong tradition of strict literal scripture interpretation in Mormonism too so I wouldn’t be surprised if many ex-Mormons end up becoming atheists or agnostics rather than continuing to believe in a more liberal form of Christianity.
If you spoke to me six months ago, I would have been closer to Dawkins in some ways, as an agnostic. But as an agnostic, I couldn’t agree with hardcore atheism, which is so certain of something which is almost impossible to prove either way. You are right though, he tends to associate religion with fundamentalism, which makes it a softer target. When I was growing up, I was twelve before I came across a bona fide Creationist. I didn’t meet any others for the best part of a decade later. The majority of the Christians I’ve known agree with evolution, even if, they frequently consider it to be God-guided. It may be different in the States, but that isn’t/wasn’t the case here.
So in his way, Dawkins is also a literalist, because he can’t appreciate the value of myth, even to people who know it not to be literally true. I also doubt the man has much notion of metaphor or poetic imagery (other than the “blind watchmaker” perhaps!)
He’s essentially a reductionist, and having a polarized argument suits him. Of course, the more one thinks about it, genes alone are NOT a convincing argument for evolution. In purely genetic terms, humans are useless at spreading their genes. Microbes are far more successful – so there is actually no survival reason for them to become complex multicellular organisms, when a) they’re much tougher and can survive more disasters, and b) they breed more quickly and more successfully. There isn’t actually a decent evolutionary reason for us to be this intelligent. It’s either an accident, or planned in my view. Of course, he’d say it was an “accident” too, but I mean it in a different way. I think we may well find that space is full of microbes, but not much above that.
Talking of ex-Mormon atheists, when I used to go to a certain well known board, many years ago, I found it to be full of atheists. Some of them were alright, but others were of the “free thinking” type. By “free thinking”, they tend to mean, “think like me”, and are interested in questions of scientific orthodoxy, even though that science can and will change in the near future, and even contradict the old stuff. Toeing the orthodox line can actually hold science back (Mormonism too in a similar way). For example, I get the sense that a lot of cosmological theory hinges on so called “Dark Matter”, something which has never been detected or proven to exist, yet without it the calculations are way off, and a radical rethink is needed. I often wonder if dark matter is just a myth and that someday it shall bring the edifice down around it. Yet I hear skeptics and atheists talk about dark matter as if it is fact. Sorry, it isn’t.
I probably should add that I see the Bible as a grand story of the evolution of religious views – with an initial teaching of a Father-God losing to a foundation of territorial poly-theism of competing gods, a very slow movement toward a universal but jealous God that worked in a harsh time of tribalism and violence, and finally a universal Father-God of love who could allow all people to intermingle and view each other as “family” as the world began to shrink and tribal lines could begin to erode. Fwiw, I believe there is some degree of “good and true” in each of these stages for individual people, and I believe most people’s individual journeys mirror this evolution to a degree – either in their own lives or in the lives of their ancestry (meaning many people can begin at a later stage through the “evolution” of their ancestors). I actually am appreciative of the fact that Mormonism is wide enough to include people in all these stages, even while I understand that the earlier stages are easier to maintain and are the ones that tend toward domination within a mainstream. I would mourn the passing of them if they were eliminated completely, since that would exclude many who cannot yet embrace the true universal core of our theology – and I don’t want them to be excluded, since I’ve seen literally thousands move over the course of my life along the path and through the stages I see in our scriptures. I would love it if everyone was able to leave behind the views of God that I see as “less evolved” – but I like that we can accept converts (and generations-long members) who are not there and help them get there. I like that we can have lots of people who still have an OT perspective, even as I hope they can move on to a NT view.
That’s the ideal of “pure Mormonism”, imo – and if those who are “more evolved” in this way leave and aren’t there to help others move along the path (just because they aren’t understood and supported by many), the overall movement slows dramatically. I don’t want that to happen. I love the ideal I see, and I love helping others see that ideal – and if I leave, who will step in and take my place with those in my circle of influence?
SamBee wrote:If you spoke to me six months ago, I would have been closer to Dawkins in some ways, as an agnostic. But as an agnostic, I couldn’t agree with hardcore atheism, which is so certain of something which is almost impossible to prove either way.
You are right though, he tends to associate religion with fundamentalism, which makes it a softer target. When I was growing up, I was twelve before I came across a bona fide Creationist. I didn’t meet any others for the best part of a decade later. The majority of the Christians I’ve known agree with evolution, even if, they frequently consider it to be God-guided. It may be different in the States, but that isn’t/wasn’t the case here.
So in his way, Dawkins is also a literalist, because he can’t appreciate the value of myth, even to people who know it not to be literally true. …He’s essentially a reductionist, and having a polarized argument suits him.
Even though I doubt that they represent the majority of Christians at this point, I think there are still a significant number of fundamentalist young-earth creationists in America and I guess this really irritates Richard Dawkins and other atheists to see them arguing against evolution and especially the teaching of evolution in public schools. However, it doesn’t do much good for Dawkins to rant and rave about this if they don’t really want to hear about atheism anyway. At best, he will probably only convince some of the weaker Christians that are already looking for an excuse to doubt religion. People who are already satisfied with their beliefs don’t really appreciate this kind of disrespectful rhetoric and will simply get defensive and dismiss these atheist ideas without much thought.
Part of the joke is that Dawkins comes from England which is a country with an established religion. However, Church of England bishops have a habit of denying the virgin birth, resurrection and all the other more incredible aspects of Christianity. However, when the Archbishop of York made some of these statements, York Minster got struck by lightning and set ablaze shortly afterwards. :ugeek: Maybe Richard should let the woolly Anglicans do their own work. Their church attendance is plummeting faster than the USA.
Quote:At best, he will probably only convince some of the weaker Christians that are already looking for an excuse to doubt religion. Hey DevilsAdvocate, most of us who are here did not find ourselves on this journey because we were looking for reasons to doubt. I think we should extend that same courtesy to all people who find themselves doubting, questioning and even turning away from their former faith. The search for personal truth takes a lot of strength.
I also wanted to add that according to Gallup polls 1/3 or about 33% of Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of God. That really isn’t that small of a number. About 40% (sorry I didn’t memorize that number) believe the Bible is inspired. I think around 20ish% believed it to be myth, legend and fables mixed with some history (I suppose those are the unbelievers).
So, according to those numbers about 47% of all Bible believers are literalists. Someone please correct my math if I am off…a statistician I’m not!
Dawkins is probably preaching to the choir, but that is what apologists do, too. I guess there is a market for it. I haven’t read anything of his, although his books have been highly recommended so I’m sure I’ll get around to it some day. He already gets bonus points for using words I had to look up!
just me wrote:Quote:At best, he will probably only convince some of the weaker Christians that are already looking for an excuse to doubt religion. Hey DevilsAdvocate, most of us who are here did not find ourselves on this journey because we were looking for reasons to doubt. I think we should extend that same courtesy to all people who find themselves doubting, questioning and even turning away from their former faith. The search for personal truth takes a lot of strength.
I understand that some people are mostly just looking for the truth above all else and I guess atheism/agnosticism simplifies things for many of them because it reduces some of the required assumptions they need to make by rejecting popular faith-based beliefs that aren’t directly supported by overwhelming evidence. However, I still think one of the major reasons that atheism appeals to many people is that it really is the easy way out by giving them a convenient excuse to reject any moral obligations so that they can basically live a selfish hedonistic life without feeling guilty about it. I think this is especially a motivating factor for ex-Mormon atheists because of the high demands that the LDS Church currently makes like tithing, the Word of Wisdom, time-consuming callings and meetings, etc.
just me wrote:I also wanted to add that according to Gallup polls 1/3 or about 33% of Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of God. That really isn’t that small of a number. About 40% (sorry I didn’t memorize that number) believe the Bible is inspired. I think around 20ish% believed it to be myth, legend and fables mixed with some history (I suppose those are the unbelievers). So, according to those numbers about 47% of all Bible believers are literalists.
I already believed that there are a significant number (millions) of literal believers in the Bible in America and this is one reason why we continue to see so many interesting comments on FSTDT. However, in one recent poll only 25% directly said that they didn’t believe in evolution and the majority either didn’t really care or already believe in evolution to some extent. I’m not trying to claim that my nearly Deist opinion of the Old Testament represents the majority in America, in fact I’m pretty sure I’m in the minority in this case. However, my guess is that many of these people who don’t hesitate to profess their belief in the Bible have never actually read the entire Bible and they simply say this mostly because this is what they’ve been told they should believe.
Even if God really told Moses that people should not eat pork or shellfish thousands of years ago it doesn’t necessarily mean that this rule should still apply to modern-day Christians. Even many of these Christians who believe the Bible is literally the “word of God” still understand that much of the Old Testament was basically superseded by the New Testament, otherwise they would still be performing animal sacrifices and maybe even stoning people for blasphemy or disobeying their parents. To many Christians, the Old Testament mostly just provides historical background leading up to the New Testament and they also like the fact that it contains many prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. So to take some of the worst parts of the Old Testament completely out of context to try to use this as supposed proof that Christianity is obviously a false belief doesn’t really make much sense to me.
FWIW, a lot of so called “atheists” are really agnostics, it’s just that it’s not as well known a term. Having been one, I can confirm that atheists really don’t know how to relate to agnostics, it’s actually quite funny. Christians are the same, LDS included. They assume you’re atheist. Atheists assume that you’re a fence sitter. Couldn’t be more wrong. My argument was always to say that I wasn’t going to jump to conclusions about things I don’t know about. Of course, my outlook is different now, but I’ve been there.
SamBee wrote:I can confirm that atheists really don’t know how to relate to agnostics, it’s actually quite funny. Christians are the same, LDS included. They assume you’re atheist. Atheists assume that you’re a fence sitter. Couldn’t be more wrong. My argument was always to say that I wasn’t going to jump to conclusions about things I don’t know about.
Yeah, I think most LDS consider “agnostic” a dirty word. I find it quite appealing actually and pulling to me personally – using your own words. “I wasn’t going to jump to conclusions about things I don’t know about.” This is why I personally cannot be a good devout mormon, but I also can’t just pack up and leave. I just don’t know, about any of it – and I’m okay with that stance – for the time-being at least. And, no disrespect DA, but I don’t think “my moral obligation” to society has decrease at all. It certainly has in regards to the church — but I think it’s been “offset” by an increase in other areas?
I don’t know Hawkins theories well. But I just taught the youth Sunday school class a lesson in the Old Testament, and I was reading some of the chapters that we “are not” suppose to cover in class. Parts like how Israel annihilates everybody who is not part of the tribes (that’s sound racist to me), and then in one battle they take some prisoners, and Moses chews them out and tells them they have offended god, and they need to go and kill all boys and women who are not virgins, and then the tribes can divide up the rest of the “young girls” amongst themselves for wives. Something like 30,000 virgins to split between the 12 tribes. Okay, and that’s just one example. If one is a good devout Christan or Jew, and believes the Bible is the literal “word of god”, which according to DA is 33% of the population, how could one NOT believe that the God of the Old Testament is cruel, vindictive and jealous? I think this next sentence is a VERY good observation – at least from the folks that I know.
Quote:However, my guess is that many of these people who don’t hesitate to profess their belief in the Bible have never actually read the entire Bible and they simply say this mostly because this is what they’ve been told they should believe.
Consider our own. How many Mormons have actually read the Old Testament? Not just the good moral stories like David Goliath — but the stories like the one I just referred to in Numbers? I would venture to guess it would be less than 10% – just a guesstimate. I have only read it one time – on my mission. Talking to my own family of TBMs, I am the ONLY one to have read it cover to cover.
SamBee wrote:FWIW, a lot of so called “atheists” are really agnostics, it’s just that it’s not as well known a term. Having been one, I can confirm that atheists really don’t know how to relate to agnostics, it’s actually quite funny. Christians are the same, LDS included. They assume you’re atheist. Atheists assume that you’re a fence sitter. Couldn’t be more wrong. My argument was always to say that I wasn’t going to jump to conclusions about things I don’t know about.
cwald wrote:
Yeah, I think most LDS consider “agnostic” a dirty word. I find it quite appealing actually and pulling to me personally – using your own words. “I wasn’t going to jump to conclusions about things I don’t know about.” …I just don’t know, about any of it – and I’m okay with that stance – for the time-being at least. And, no disrespect DA, but I don’t think “my moral obligation” to society has decrease at all. It certainly has in regards to the church — but I think it’s been “offset” by an increase in other areas?
I don’t really think that being agnostic is necessarily bad or immoral by definition in fact I think this should actually be the default point-of-view unless you have good reasons to believe something else. And even if you think that you know for sure that God does or does not exist, I still think the most popular alternatives should all be considered anyway before trying to tell other people what to do especially when it comes to laws. Maybe it’s not completely fair to think this, but personally I think of atheists like Richard Dawkins basically as arrogant and intolerant agnostics that have taken the extra step to assume that they know more than they could possibly ever know for sure but maybe it’s just because the ones that like to argue are more obnoxious and vocal about their opinions.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:I think of atheists like Richard Dawkins basically as arrogant and intolerant agnostics that have taken the extra step to assume that they know more than they could possibly ever know for sure but maybe it’s just because the ones that like to argue are more obnoxious and vocal about their opinions.
Very funny – and true.
😆
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.