Dawkins Atheism and the "Other" as Ridiculous

Not to take this in a different direction, but I often reflect on this in terms of what “other” LDS beliefs or practices I find as ridiculous or unacceptable in relation to those I find reasonable and am able to accept. In other words, this process is not just a judgement of “other” belief systems external to our own but also an internal practice as we work through our own beliefs. What is going to remain on my LDS plate as I finally get to the end of the buffet line?

For example, I struggle with the idea that the Book of Mormon is an actual and accurate history of the people, places and events described. My primary purpose for this doubt is my belief that there is an extreme lack of direct evidence for those assertions. There may be a great deal of circumstantial evidence but the process I observe some using to make that evidence fit often causes even further doubt in me.

BUT, I have an strong testimony that Jesus Christ took upon himself my sins, weaknesses and affirmities in the Garden. I similarly believe that I have Heavenly Parents who live and love me. Both of those convictions similarly have absolutely NO direct evidence to support them. My spiritual experiences and promptings from the Spirit are my evidence. But they would not pass any kind of objective, scientific criteria. And why is that not enough for me when it comes to the historical nature of the Book of Mormon and other things I struggle to find reasonable?

So this idea of seeing “other” beliefs outside of our own faith system as ridiculous reiterated for me my personal path of learning what I can accept and believe in this church and what “other” things within the church I cannot – or find “ridiculous” or unreasonable. I wonder if it follows a similar process that others follow when accepting their belief system in general while rejecting “others” as ridiculous?

Sorry if I was off point but this is what hit me when reading your post.

I REALLY don’t want this to become a talk about Mormonism being a cult or not. The point I want to focus on is Atheists seeing religion as an “intellectual error,” which is a specific instance of the more broad concept of people seeing the “other” as ridiculous, while their own ridiculous traditions are considered “normal” and reasonable.

Agreed. I’m glad he mentions Anglicanism, because that’s about as mainstream, establishment and unthreatening as religion can get (unless of course, you’re an extreme RC).

Some stuff in Islam bears a superficial resemblance to Mormonism, like an angel giving a book to a young man, who goes off and marries several women, after he finds none of the local churches are right for him. There’s other stuff too which is evidence to the contrary, but if we keep it to the basic level, Islam gets more respected as a religion in many parts of the world than Mormonism, simply because of its age. (It’s currently getting a bad image in the west thanks to friction over middle eastern matters, but that’s something else)

Likewise, there are some truly bizarre notions/practices in other religions. I don’t want anyone to think I’m being intolerant, because I’m not criticizing them as practices, just pointing out that they’re unusual, or at least different. And also my reaction to them.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews rock backwards and forwards while praying, which is known as davening. If you’re not Jewish, it looks really unusual, and even alarming. They also have frilled undershirts, which they wear as part of their religion. This might actually be less unusual to some board members than a lot of mainstream Christians would find it, if you see what I mean. They have thousands of other practices, some of which I can’t relate to the Bible, but there you go…

Hindus have hundreds, if not thousands of unusual practices. Some of them involve drinking cow’s urine. They also have the caste system, which is controversial, and whose origins are shrouded in secrecy. Another common practice amongst yogis ->

http://www.lifepositive.com/body/traditional-therapies/urine-therapy.asp

Catholicism like Hinduism is essentially split into an intellectual variety and a folkish variety. Most of the more obviously unusual stuff is in the folk traditions, weeping and bleeding statues and the like. Then there’s ring kissing, transubstantiation (the bread and wine are believed to literally become blood and flesh) and so on.

Eastern Orthodoxy, a lot of the same stuff, but I have to admit when I was in Jerusalem, I was slightly bemused by icons and stones which were covered in saliva from people kissing them.

Don’t even go into Pentecostalism!!! I have witnessed it myself.

The upshot of all this is that I often find stuff unusual in other religions, but that’s because I’m not a part of them. Stuff in Mormonism which was once unusual to me is now fairly mundane in some ways. (Maybe it shouldn’t be!) But I also appreciate we look strange to others. I think much of it is the fact that Mormonism is a relatively young religion. Not as young as Scientology, which is also mentioned in the quote… but young enough. (Out of all the religions I’ve mentioned, Scientology is the only one I believe to be a complete crock, although there must be something of worth in it somewhere.)

(Out of all the religions I’ve mentioned, Scientology is the only one I believe to be a complete crock, although there must be something of worth in it somewhere.)

Curious as to why you think so. Granted, most of what I know of the religion I learned from watching South Park 😯 – but why do you feel this way? The whole “alien” theme doesn’t bother me at all – in fact, I think it COULd fit quite nicely into “Mormonism” – with a stretch of course. We believe in “aliens” don’t we? Interested in your opinion – I don’t know much about it to be honest.

(Out of all the religions I’ve mentioned, Scientology is the only one I believe to be a complete crock, although there must be something of worth in it somewhere.)

Curious as to why you think so. Granted, most of what I know of the religion I learned from watching South Park 😯 – but why do you feel this way? The whole “alien” theme doesn’t bother me at all – in fact, I think it COULd fit quite nicely into “Mormonism” – with a stretch of course. We believe in “aliens” don’t we? Interested in your opinion – I don’t know much about it to be honest.

It’s mainly because there are a number of indications that L. Ron Hubbard set the thing up purely to make money.

It’s on record, for example, that L. Ron Hubbard was out with some friends (one of whom was a well known Sci Fi writer in his own right, like LRH was), and Hubbard said that he needed a way to make money, and the way to do that was to set up a fake religion. He also wrote some fiction along the same lines, years before doing it.

That and the fact that as I’ve read through Scientology stuff, I can’t find very much of merit in it at all, except perhaps three or four things –

1) Everyone has flaws in their personality.

2) Psychiatrists and psychologists and their profession don’t just treat mental illness, they are often used to maintain the status quo, and political/social stability – see here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggishly_progressing_schizophrenia <- for a Soviet example. Note also diagnoses of women as hysterical to "keep them in their place". 3) We have certain ideas (implants and engrams I think they’re called in Scientology) which are implanted into our minds through life by subtle social means, which do much the same. They keep us nice docile unquestioning citizens. But I don’t agree with the further details of these in Scientology, because they sound distinctly made up. Dawkins has a similar idea in memes (which interestingly he treats as fact, despite being an unproven theory) 4) Nothing is quite as it seems. However, when it comes to 2 & 3, Scientology is guilty of its own control methods, and more or less tries to control people with its own forms of psychology and implants. When it comes to control and discipline, Scientology/Dianetics/Hubbard Academy (Whatever it calls itself this week) makes the COJCLDS look like a bunch of puddycats. It’s also incredibly expensive – a poor person can feasibly get through the rungs of Mormonism up to Temple sealings/endowments etc. A poor Scientologist can’t. If you want a good read, check out the biography of LRH, “Bare Faced Messiah”. It makesFawn Brodie look dull in comparison.

Dawkins is generally heavily demonized by a lot of religious people. The fact is, he is very analytical and expects those who say something is true to be able to provide evidence of the claim. To me that is not demonic. I define that as not being gullible.

One of his books, The Selfish Gene, explains very clearly what a religion is. It is simply a meme. Dawkins defines a meme as being similar to a gene in that it is information that is passed on, and also just like a gene, the information mutates. It is different from a gene in that it spreads very fast. Dawkins never compares memes to living organisms but instead compares them to viruses, which also infuriates religious people. His meaning is that memes do not have a llife of their own; they require a host to duplicate it and spread it. This is how religion is. It is in no sense *true*. Successful memes, like religions, don’t have to be true to be successful. But having the hosts believe they are true certainly helps them to spread.

Given all that (and I highly recommend the reading of The Selfish Gene – it’s a heavy read but well worth it) it makes perfect sense that Dawkins characterizes religions as he does.

Dawkins is generally heavily demonized by a lot of religious people. The fact is, he is very analytical and expects those who say something is true to be able to provide evidence of the claim. To me that is not demonic. I define that as not being gullible.

He’s demonized because he is incredibly arrogant, smug and obnoxious. He is not the kind of man I’d like to hang out with. In fact, he’s the essential stereotype of the upper middle class Englishman. He’s simply not a pleasant man.

If he was, he wouldn’t just be preaching to the converted (i.e. the ones already on his side). And even some people in the skeptical camp think he’s pretty awful. I have sympathy with some of what he says, but his entire manner puts me off. Give me Stephen Jay Gould over Dawkins anyday. Or even Carl Sagan. At least they behaved more like gentlemen. Some of the time, perhaps.

One of his books, The Selfish Gene, explains very clearly what a religion is. It is simply a meme. Dawkins defines a meme as being similar to a gene in that it is information that is passed on, and also just like a gene, the information mutates. It is different from a gene in that it spreads very fast. Dawkins never compares memes to living organisms but instead compares them to viruses, which also infuriates religious people. His meaning is that memes do not have a llife of their own; they require a host to duplicate it and spread it. This is how religion is. It is in no sense *true*. Successful memes, like religions, don’t have to be true to be successful. But having the hosts believe they are true certainly helps them to spread.

Given all that (and I highly recommend the reading of The Selfish Gene – it’s a heavy read but well worth it) it makes perfect sense that Dawkins characterizes religions as he does.

This is all fine and good. But when did Dawkins ever PROVE the existence of memes? They’re an idea, a concept, and not a proven theory at all.

Trouble is that Dawkins talks about them as if they are proven. He does precisely what he criticizes in others.

I think it is more helpful to compare them to computer viruses than biological ones.

This is how religion is. It is in no sense *true*.

All generalizations are false.*

Some aspects of religion are true, and can be proven to work. Meditation for example has positive effects on the brain.

So who are you to say in one sweep that religion is in no sense “true”? Maybe the bulk of it isn’t, but some of it is true in some senses.

* Yes, that’s a joke in case you didn’t pick that up.

Scientology is the only one I believe to be a complete crock

Yeah Okay, pretty messed up stuff – I can’t argue with you. Thanks for the links Kong.