h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have mixed feelings on this... again, I suspect that a lot of the attacks on Dawkins are ad hominems on the grounds it's much easier to attack the messenger than the message, at least in this case. There seems to be a pretty solid wall of anti-Dawkins propaganda from the theists, presumably on the grounds that Dawkins = atheism.

But then we get people like Effers saying they also find him angry, arrogant, etc...

Gif

I don't agree with Dawkins where he seems to think that faithers are motivated by the scriptures to do evil. Then the believers counter with Mao and Stalin etc etc.

People do evil because it's in our nature to do evil. We evolved to do genocide and were practicing it before we evolved a way to think about it so we could rationalize it.

We're getting nowhere arguing faith or lack of it because it's a red herring to begin with.

>But then we get people like Effers saying they also find him angry, arrogant,<

To be fair Gif I have made quite a few posts over a long period about my problems with Dawkins, and I don't think that they can be summed up so simply. Yes I have a problem with the same condescending manner, desperately trying to appear clever, he has when he talks to a theist, any theist...be it the liberal archbish of cant or some lunatic young earth creationist. He seems to make no distinction in his black and white viewpoint between people who are out and out simplistic fanatics and those who aren't. He simplifies the argument because he takes no account of cultural and social issues. He's a middle class rich millionaire with a highly privileged education and lifestyle. So he can waltz into a school like he did on his 'Darwin' series, and spend 5 minutes on a few soundbites, ridiculing the teachers in a state school in a Muslim area, for not ramming home the truth to the pupils that allah probably doesn't exist. The teachers say to him 'but their whole social fabric and way of life can't just be got rid of just like that'. Dawkins doesn't want to know.

My problem with him is mainly that he is culturally naive because for hundreds of thousands of years it appears humans have believed in the supernatural in one form or another. It binds families and societies together. And still today around the world there are many societies that depend on such beliefs for their functioning. And many of these supernatural beliefs are benign and connected with relationship to nature and rituals of life and death. You simply can't just take these things away from people overnight. Dawkins comes across as a zealot to me.

I don't find him angry. Yes I do find him contemptuous with his tv programmes of people who don't see things the way he does, and his lack of seeing that you can't just bash people over the head with your own truth, whatever cultural background they may have, and not expect to put their backs up if you are ripping away aeons of tradition that have important social functions.

He is talking to them like one would talk to anyone who held an incredulous false belief...i.e. like a flat-earther...when you spend that much time banging you head against a logical brick wall one does start to talk in that manner.

The good thing is it's making religoius people jumpy and forcing them to answer back which is always a good thing.

Oh I'd be all for a decent length tv programme, maybe a whole series that could go into all the facets of things like the Abrahmic religions and other systems of belief involving in depth complex arguments, the social role of religion, it's likely truth viewed from a scientific perspective etc. Something calm, neutral and intellectual. Not gimmicky programmes zooming from interview to interview with Dawkins playing his favourite role.

Things that have gone on for hundreds of thousands of years across the whole world are not simple.

Richard Dawkins is at his best when talking on zoology/evolution. His atheist views, which I share, are rather too strident, but this is forced on him by the actions of a minoity of theists. Creationism has no place in science lessons.
Mr. Dawkins explains his position very well at the beginning of The God Delusion. Religious views should be descrete and personal but some theists, again a minority, insist on loudness, publicity and even death threats.

I forgot.,
Amazing post Clive, well done.

Um...thanks

Which one?

>> When has Dawkins gone too far? <<

By suggesting (preaching?) that 'we' have an obligation to right the many wrongs of organised religion. Those involving the lying to, abuse or repression of children in particular.

(Which kinda sounds like just what Jesus would do if he could. But 'we' are not Jesus. Thank god.)

Whether this obligation to butt into other people's business is a supposed to be a moral or intellectual one I am never sure. Perhaps it is an evolutionary imperative. In any case, whatever the rational motivation, it smacks of interfering with and denying the cultural freedoms of others. It reeks of Crusading.


~jwf~

Hmm. Is it 'crusading' and 'butting into other people's business' to insist that religious groups treat others equally (I'm thinking gay adoption specifically)? Or that they're honest about health issues when they are the main / only source of health information (condoms in Africa)? Or when they promote anti-Semitic or homophobic agendas, or demand the 'right' to teach children their own ideology as fact?

We wouldn't tolerate that from - for example - a commercial organisation. Can you imagine if Marlborough founded a university, employed only teachers who deny a link between smoking and cancer, campaigned for 'both sides' to be taught in schools, etc? Would it be regarded as 'denying cultural freedom' to speak out against that?

I raise these issues for debate...

Gif

Yes I agree Gif that certain practices inspired by religious belief such as the persecution of gays, condoms, female circumscision should be criticised. Crikey from my POV they are downright hideous and wrong. And I think different methods should be used according to who's pulling the strings in terms of ensuring these things continue. The Catholic church needs to be criticised to the highest degree for its condom policy...and we've seen in recent years them at last confronting all the paedophilia that has gone on that was covered up because of pressure from the media that outraged Catholics. But female circumscison is I believe a continuation of tribal practices, so maybe better education and persuasion would make more sense for that. I don't know though, I'm not sure. It's not always straightforward in terms of the best way of getting rid of these things.

But I find it significant that most of the attacks from people like Dawkins centre on the Abrahmic religions. What about Budhists, Hindus, all the many tribal spiritualities that have their basis in nature because of the lifestyle that some still have? Their essentially hunter/gatherer existance. Though he did make some cheap shot about a Hindu painting he showed to children in his Christmas lecture on evolution to children at the Royal Insitution.

Imagine a Dawkins or some other atheist embarking on a world tour ranging from shanty towns in South America, to the poor of India, Tibetan mountain people, Amazonian tribes, Papuan New Guinea mountain tribes etc. Going around and telling them they should immediately give up their superstitious ways, and take on board the atheist likely truth, and they are utterly misguided. It'd make great telly. But the logic is, if you are going to criticise the Abrahmic faiths, the same thing holds true for all forms of spirituality. But we never see atheists doing that...and neither would I want to, because as I've said the social and cultural context needs to be considered.

Dawkins and the rest of 'us' talk mainly about the Abrahamin religions because those are the ones that are directly affecting us these days.

I think that the criticism should focus mainly, not on the religions themselves, but on the politics behind them.

I´m missing now more voices of atheists or anyone with a sense of “intellectual obligation” as jwf says- on the current issues affecting Europe in relation with religion.
The little I´ve heard in the media makes me sick, because the issues are treated superficially. And they are really complex. There are several crusades, but not led by atheists but by fanatics theists and fascists.

Crusade number one ( that´s not a mambo) The minarets:
Can anyone explain why progresist groups have joined the fascists in Switzerland? And why the same referéndum in the rest of Europe will surely give the same results?
In my opinión it is because there´s islamophobia supported by ignorance and hate very well stirred by right-wing groups, mass media behaviour and a tremendous clumsyness of politicians on dealing with the issue.
Swiss feminists say that they vote yes because of the treatment of women in Islam.
I´d like to answer:
First, religion isn´t the cause but an excuse for machism, Muslim religion isn´t more machist than Christianism.
Second, the emancipation of women must be led by women, not imposed. If those feminists want to help muslim women, they should fight for ways to foster education and social relations with them. Also, showing muslims women what other muslims women are doing to get rid of patriarcal power.
Tell now muslims women in Swizterland to get rid of the veil, and they´ll fix it better to their heads because they will feel that their cultural identity is being attacked. ( a wrong point of view, but you can´t make them remove it by imposition)

Crusade number 2: that of the crosses in Itally, now affecting Spain too. What a curious coincidence that those who defend more vehemently the presence of crosses in italian public schools are asking for a similar referéndum in Italy. They are defending “ a cultural identity” but as we all know, the removal of crosses is against the constitucional principle of aconfesionality in most European estates not against the principle of religious freedom, which is the case of the prohibition of minarets. Ignorance and intolerance are mixing both issues.

Crusade number 3 : The bosses of the spanish church have said recently that the abortion is worse than pederastia or homicide. At the same time, they miss the “good old times” with Franco (there have been a lot of masses in his memory recently, he died on a 20th november) and had no problem when the Pope JPI blessed Pinochet. Etc. The list is endless.


I will wellcome Mr Dawkins or anyone else who wants to face those crusades. But Let´s blame fanatics, not religion per se. Let´s blame the socio-economic situation everywhere and forget about lynching scape-goats provided by fascists.

Without religion there would be less for the fanatics to hide behind...they would be easier to face and it would be more difficult for them to justify their actions.

This is similar to why religious people hate being asked closed questions as the questions leave little wriggle room to spout a platitude as an answer rather than answer with a justifiable reason.

Before you can sort out people who are doing wrong you need to remove the defences...religion is that defence. Religion has always been the defence that's why religions became what they are today...instruments of power rather than just stone age explanations for eyes in the forests, noises at night, the rising and falling of the sun, what happens to us when we die.

Reductionism bring religion down to the man-made initiation...until one understands that one cannot broach the issue of fanatics 'hiding' behind religion. Ofourse, not all fanatics hide behind religion...normal Christians who get thee people into power really believe all the stuff as well.

>I think that the criticism should focus mainly, not on the religions themselves, but on the politics behind them.< Mar

Yep I'm coming around more to this view myself, though not without some conflicting views, because on and off here I've been quite critical eg of certain Muslim practices and Christian ones. I do think there is something particularly predisposed within the Abrahmic faiths towards the abuse of power and control. One only has to read their holy book to see why this might be the case. But ultimately its the abuse of power that is the real problem, and this can equally occur within political ideologies.

This why I think critics of religion in our societies should be more honest about why they concentrate on the Abrahmic faiths. I don't think it's just as 3Dots suggests because it affects us. We hear plenty of concern about the effect on eg African peoples from say the condom policy, by Atheists. So it's the peculiarly nasty predisposition of the Abrahmic faiths that is the problem.

I'm not one of those naive idiots that think all tribal beliefs are somehow, oh so wonderful; yes there's plenty of scope in those contexts to, for all kinds of unpleasant practices. As tumsup suggested it's a human predisposition for this kind of behaviour. But where there are spiritual practices that are about good relationship with nature, informing stable social structures that are non exploitative etc what's wrong with that? Ultimately the real problem is abuse of power in its many guises..as I think tumsup is suggesting.

(I must say one of the things I most like about not being constrained by a rigid set of beliefs, is that we can disagree and debate with one another, as free thinkers, and also change our minds, and admit to conflicting views).

>I think that the criticism should focus mainly, not on the religions themselves, but on the politics behind them.

This, for me is the crux of it. How can we (should we?) draw a line between 'politics' and 'religion'? If someone does something unacceptable but uses their religion to justify it, to what extent should we hold back in our criticism because of their religious beliefs?

To pick a specific example (and because I've been watching the Hitchens/Fry debate), what about Catholic adoption agencies that refuse to place children with same-sex couples? Are we, as they claim, oppressing them by forcing them to grant equal rights to all couples? How can we separate the religion from the politics in this case?

Gif

>> ...does something unacceptable but uses their religion to justify it...<<

The problem, y' see, is that the word 'unacceptable' is a value judgment. What authority do we have to pass judgment on others? Why is our judgment superior?

On what basis - moral, intellectual, religious, political, 'evolutionary', scientific, 'legal' - does any group have the right to judge the cultural behavior of any another group? Or worse, to impose their will upon any other group's cultural, political or religious establishments?

We think we can refuse building permits for minarets based on a wide range of architectural and design arguments. Or even justify it on the basis of economics, saying we are safeguarding property values.

But we do not hesitate to build schools in foreign countries and tell the locals they must sent their daughters to be trained in the ways of the great satan.

It cuts both ways. Deeply.

Ironically, the historical basis of our self-righteous cultural imperialism lies in the early Christian philosophy of proselytizing.
And look what that has done to the whirled.


~jwf~

Ah, where is Ed when someone's playing his song?

If I may quote from the Master, our only way of making value decisions like this is by a democratic conversation - like this one!

I for one would hesitate in telling anyone else where they should send their child for education. But note that that is *precisely* the kind of behaviour we see justified on religious grounds. There have been a couple of cases in the UK press lately where faith schools have rejected a pupil on the grounds that the parents 'aren't religious enough':
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6578332.ece

So - are we right to tell schools like this that they are wrong? Or would we be justified in insisting on our right to tell others how to educate their children? And - more importantly - why?

Gif

>> ...does something unacceptable but uses their religion to justify it...<<

The problem, y' see, is that the word 'unacceptable' is a value judgment. What authority do we have to pass judgment on others? Why is our judgment superior? <<<<

Let´s not talk about abstracts.
Unnaceptable isn´t a value judgment if we are talking about secular civil rights attacked by some religious groups: abortion, homosexual rights, euthanasia, investigation with stem cells, public education free of religion, etc.
Our judgement isn´t superior nor inferior, it has to do with the defence of rights assumed democratically by consensum.

In the case Gif mentions, I have not a clear idea. However, I can´t help thinking again of what happens in my country. The constant attacks of religious leaders and conservative media on laws that regulate the right of abortion or the rights of homosexuals are not only responding to their "moral agenda" but mainly to their implicit political one. Those groups are acting politically, they want to erode the current goverment (socialist) because with the conservative party they feel at easy, supported, favoured and want to see it back to power. The church leaders remained silent about those topics when the conservative party was governing.

In USA, there exists the same simbiosis among Republicans and some religious groups. Republicans dress themselves with the " high morality" religion offers and religious groups get support from them.

Maybe we could add that conservatives parties are so close to some religious groups not only for that moral faÇade,(left groups don´t need it, social humanistic values are part of their agenda) but also because dogmatism, acritic thought and authoritarism are the typical characteristic of religion. Those characteristic are very handy to keep power.
But...
Can´t dogmatism etc. be taken from sources other than religion? Are dogmatism, acritic thinking, etc. exclusive of some religious groups or conservative parties?
for me, no. So, religion, a complex fenomenon, doesn´t explain fanatism.

Effers, if it placates you any, there was a fiery denunciation of the anti-scientific crusade of militant Hindus at the British Humanist Convention I attended where Dawkins spoke and was in the audience - he was rehearsing, what turned out the be the last chapter from TGSOE (exegesis of the Darwin's final paragraph) but the condemnation of religion from the humanists wasn't *only* limited to the Abrahamic faiths.