Dawkins Atheism and the "Other" as Ridiculous

[Anonymous]

All_no-ing wrote:

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.

I agree with this. I’m not as anti-atheist as many, and find Dawkins and Harris to be quite stimulating. I also like the description of “memes,” and quite agree with the process he describes. I know many see him as dogmatic, proselytizing, and generally stubborn…but I think that is probably a projection of what we don’t like in each of us! 😆

The only problem I have with these guys is that they tend to define “God” the way religions have in the past (a perfected human sitting on a throne somewhere). I know many still do, but I think there are many today that have changed their concept of Deity. I see definitions of God as “love,” or “the creative energy of the universe.” It seems that Dawkins succeeds in his religion bashing the more he keeps “God” antiquated!

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

Quote:

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.

To me the concept of memes simply sounds like a fancy way of saying that people tend to pick up certain beliefs from other people. In other words, people could not typically reconstruct the same religious beliefs based entirely on their own experience and observations. Duh, how else would people ever learn about the most popular religious beliefs other than by hearing these ideas from other people or reading about it? I’m sure glad Richard Dawkins took the time to clear that up in such a convoluted way. You might as well classify most legitimate history and text based news reporting as a mind virus too based on this idea.

Suppose for the sake of argument that Jesus actually did re-appear to some people after he was supposed to be dead whether it was a spirit, vision, dream, supernatural miracle, or maybe he never really died on the cross to begin with. In any case, it was a one time event and unless you were actually there at the time then the truth is that you don’t really know for sure what really happened. Maybe the people who where there didn’t really know what happened either and it was mostly just rumors and hearsay that took on a life of their own. Skeptics can assume that the people telling this story were all liars or delusional fanatics all they want but in the end this is all pure speculation and not a verifiable fact at this point. I don’t see why we should realistically expect everyone to interpret this story the same (atheist) way. If people want to believe in magic and supernatural causes what harm does it really do in most cases even if they are wrong?

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

Quote:

Are you a cult expert too? The idea of the malevolent cult is a classic idea in fiction. There are also ideas about real religions in the book but I didn’t want to be rude about the faithful. I’m an atheist but I don’t have any sympathy for that Richard Dawkins style of atheism which treats religion as an intellectual error…I don’t want to be rude about people’s beliefs. The idea that some are less ridiculous than others isn’t helpful; how they behave is a different matter. I have every sympathy with people who are enraged by how the Catholic church behaves, but that’s not about the belief system but about how people behave.

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.

It’s almost human nature for people to think they have it all figured out and that they have all the answers. Then if they see others that share the same opinions it only reinforces the conviction that they are absolutely right and anyone who disagrees with them is fundamentally wrong. In the worst cases they will band together and try to tell other people what to do and what they should believe in an intolerant and oppressive way.

There is an interesting article by Michael Crichton that characterizes environmentalism as a religion in this way. Even though he seems sceptical about religion he says that trying to get rid of it is mostly pointless because people will just replace it with some other cause to be busybodies about. Atheists are no different as far as trying to shove their own personal beliefs down other people’s throats. In fact in some cases it seems like they are the most intolerant of all because they assume (wrongly) that science has proven their opinions once and for all. For example, some of the worst atrocities of all time have been committed by atheist communists mostly in the name of progress.

[Anonymous]

Idaho Coug wrote:

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?

I LOVE this aproach!

Quote:

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.

From a scientific standpoint, I think the evidence is against the historicity of the BoM more and more…even in the last 10 years, archeology and genetics have caused apologists to create a whole new kind of mental gymnastics. It’s getting embarrasing!

Quote:

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?

Again, GREAT self-analysis, IMO. I think one reason you might struggle with these is that it is common in the church to follow the elementary, primary advice to use spiritual means to determine physical, historical truth. I think this is a flawed approach. If “we” are to claim historical accuracy of a book, we should use proven, tested, scientific means to ascertain such. The church attempted to do this while I was younger…and failed miserably. I’m ashamed how many Japanese investigators I baptized after using the filmstrip (yes, I’m that old!) “Ancient America Speaks.” There is no possible way “Quetzlcoatl” could have been Jesus…the stories are off by about 800 years! 😳 So it seems the “new,” default approach is to minimize physical evidence, and defer to “spiritual witness.” IMO, not a bad idea if “we” are to save face! Now, if we could just get to the point of using the book metaphorically…. IOW, use the great character-building stories to teach lessons…whether “true” or not!

Now, please don’t take this as a direct challenge, because I can’t judge the exact nature of your “witness” regarding your conviction of Heavenly Father/Mother, and the Savior, but is it possible since this is a “spiritual” event, that the perception you have of the literal nature of the Divine, and the literal atonement of the Savior, etc, are a form of confirmation bias? IOW, you were taught, or perceived communication that these things exist/happened the way it has been described in church teachings/talks…and your experience resonated with that story.

The reason I might lean towards this explanation in many/most instances is that those from vastly different mythologies experience the same degree of faith/conviction about their spiritual witnesses. Also, those contrasting cultures also have applicable NDEs (near death experiences) according to their expectations. Logic tells me these might be similar processes.

I don’t doubt the intensity and reality of the spiritual experience. I’ve had many myself. I’ve just come to question the meaning and interpretation of the experience. But that’s just me….

[Anonymous]

Quote:

To me the concept of memes simply sounds like a fancy way of saying that people tend to pick up certain beliefs from other people.

And just about everything else. It’s not as if all the scientific theories we all take for granted, have been tested out by the general public. Most people believe the Earth is not flat because they’re told so. Not because they’ve ever bothered to check it out.

Quote:

In other words, people could not typically reconstruct the same religious beliefs based entirely on their own experience and observations. Duh, how else would people ever learn about the most popular religious beliefs than by hearing it from other people or reading about it? I’m sure glad Richard Dawkins took the time to clear that up in such a convoluted way. You might as well classify most legitimate history and text based news reporting as a mind virus too based on this idea.

How else would they pick it up? Telepathy and visions are out of the game as far as Dawkins is concerned.

Quote:

Suppose for the sake of argument that Jesus actually did re-appear to some people after he was supposed to be dead whether it was a spirit, vision, dream, supernatural miracle, or maybe he never really died on the cross to begin with. In any case, it was a one time event and unless we were actually there at the time then the truth is that we don’t really know for sure what really happened. Maybe the people who where there didn’t really know what happened either and it was mostly just rumors and hearsay that took on a life of their own. Skeptics can assume that the people telling this story were all liars or delusional fanatics all they want but in the end this is all pure speculation and not a verifiable fact at this point. I don’t see why we should realistically expect everyone to interpret this story the same (atheist) way. If people want to believe in magic and supernatural causes what harm does it really do in most cases even if they are wrong?

The problem is that we can’t prove whether or not it happened. Then again, I can’t prove 100% some of the stories about my grandfather.

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

All_no-ing wrote:

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.

I agree with this. I’m not as anti-atheist as many, and find Dawkins and Harris to be quite stimulating. I also like the description of “memes,” and quite agree with the process he describes. I know many see him as dogmatic, proselytizing, and generally stubborn…but I think that is probably a projection of what we don’t like in each of us!…It seems that Dawkins succeeds in his religion bashing the more he keeps “God” antiquated!

I don’t think Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Cristopher Hitchens are demonized so much simply because they are popular atheist authors as much as the fact that they act like anti-Christian bigots and the underlying theme of much of their work seems to be mostly the idea that religion is stupid and needs to be eradicated. I don’t see how anyone can realistically expect much good to come from this kind of rhetoric because it is likely to provoke unnecessary hatred and prejudice between Christians and atheists.

Rather than giving the impression that atheists are people too and that they mean no harm to Christians these belligerent atheist authors and their even less charming clones on the internet mostly make atheists in general look bad. When my wife rented some anti-evolution documentary called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” and saw Richard Dawkins the first thing she said is “that guy is a jerk” and I thought the same thing even though I believe in evolution. One critic that calls himself “Vox Day” has an interesting theory that there is a correlation between atheism and Asperger’s Syndrome and because of this many of them can’t really relate to people that don’t think like them and they are obsessed with things that people who like religion often don’t care about quite as much. I’m sure they probably don’t sound quite so bad to people that already tend to agree with them but even some of the more level-headed atheists and agnostics have criticized these new atheists and think they are actually doing more harm than good.

I don’t doubt that Richard Dawkins is very smart but I think he is barking up the wrong tree in many cases when it comes to religion and philosophy. One problem is that he doesn’t take religion seriously at all and basically thinks of God as being in the same category as fairies. This lack of interest really shows with some of his arguments that are based mostly on personal opinions and even logical fallacies. Maybe this disrespectful attitude is all he really needs to sell some books and rile up people that never really liked religion much anyway but it definitely doesn’t make him an expert in any of these subjects he dabbles in other than maybe evolution which many Christians are not even arguing against anymore. This kind of overconfident atheism probably made more sense before we knew about relativity, the big bang, and quantum physics but now it looks like there really is more to everything than what we see.

[Anonymous]

Dawkins is guilty of the reductive fallacy, i.e. by acting and assuming that his opponents are fundamentalists.

Now this might wash in the USA, where fundamentalists have considerable influence, but not in his home country of England, where the Church of England is notoriously latitudinarian, and he should know better. Church of England bishops are appointed by the state, so few extremists creep through, and many of them don’t even believe in the virgin birth or resurrection. They’re so liberal in fact it’s difficult to see some of them as Christian. Dawkins knows this, so why does he act as if he doesn’t?

It’s easier to argue against extremes.

But the fact is that most Christians in Europe believe in evolution as well as God, in science as well as religion, not Creationism.

[Author]

Posts