Religion
Related: About this forumRichard Dawkins Is Wrong About Religion
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexberezow/2013/09/30/richard-dawkins-is-wrong-about-religion/Alex Berezow, Contributor
I write about science, science policy and a dash of European affairs.
OP/ED | 9/30/2013 @ 3:20AM
Thanks to his new autobiography, Richard Dawkins is making the media rounds again. Recently, he appeared on the Michael Medved Show. The host, who is a friend of mine, is also an adherent of Orthodox Judaism, so perhaps because of this Mr. Dawkins was more well-behaved than usual.
During the interview, Mr. Medved asked, Do you think it is appropriate and in fact intellectually necessary to level different kinds of criticism at, say, Christianity as opposed to Islam, or is it appropriate to lump all religions together?
Mr. Dawkins responded:
Lets tease apart Mr. Dawkins answer. He says that it is unfair to tar all religions with the same brush. But, he has a long history of doing exactly that. Consider the opening line from a speech he gave in 1996 to the American Humanist Association:
more at link
djean111
(14,255 posts)He has strong opinions about religion, but for me, there is nothing anyone can say for or against religion that would have any effect whatsoever on my non-belief.
I cannot imagine "converting" to atheism merely because religion of any kind is painted as violent.
I do have some born-again Baptists in my family who would be quite dangerous if they could inflict their interpretation of their religion on everyone else.
In any event, Dawkins just writes and makes speeches. He does not kill people in the name of atheism, and that, for me, is the end of it. I never got the sense Dawkins was hoping for converts to atheism, because real belief or non-belief should be a personal choice.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)complicated and highly personalized roads.
And there is nothing to prevent someone from changing their minds at any time.
That's why tolerance and open-mindedness are so important when it comes to others and their beliefs and lack of beliefs.
As long as someone's beliefs don't impinge on the rights of others or damages them in other ways, why should it matter?
But Dawkins doesn't agree with that. Just look at his t-shirt. He very much wants people to convert to atheism, imo. But he's going about it in a way that merely makes some people think they are smarter than others and alienates those that hold a different POV.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)This shows precisely why you fail to understand this issue, cbayer. And at this point, after everything that's been said to identify the glaring flaws in your logic, I have to assume you're just clinging to your narrative, the facts be damned.
Who gets to define what is a right?
Who decides what it means to "impinge" on a right?
Who decides what constitutes "damage"?
Surprise! The answers to all three of those questions depends on the religious beliefs of the person answering them! You have solved NOTHING with your canned little position statement. You simply punt on the tough questions and hope no one notices. Oh and then condemn anyone who dares suggest that the world is more complicated than you wish to believe.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)On highly personalized roads.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)WovenGems
(776 posts)Whenever religion gets too powerful heads roll, bodies burn and populations live in fear. It seems that religion, all drugs really, are best in small doses.
Theists seem more obsessed with Dawkins than the atheists they accuse of worshiping him!
If you look at both of those Dawkins quotes, they don't contradict each other at all. But as we know, it's pointless to try and appeal to facts when there's a good Dawkins bashing to be had!
rug
(82,333 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)For example, by spitting on school girls and other 'fallen women' on a regular basis.
yah, Dawkins has a point.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)when someone throws out something like this:
"How DARE Dawkins label Islam as a violent faith? He should try going to the streets of a Muslin nation and say that - bet he's too chicken to try!"
cbayer
(146,218 posts)on a regular basis.
But I could be wrong.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)grossly and indisputably misogynist. Evidence of this includes spitting on women.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)in Israel spitting on women.
Specifically, it's a sect described as "Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Ashkenazi Jews".
They are a relatively small group and have been condemned by the leaders of the Orthodox community.
You have generalized to an entire group the behavior of a small subset.
What might one call that?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)in orthodox judaism. Misogyny is standard. Women are treated as lesser humans. Ever been to an orthodox synagogue? A wedding? Do you know anything about the subject?
If I had generalized to an entire group based on the behavior of one individual I would be behaving just like many theists in this group, but I didn't do that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You generalized the behavior of a small orthodox sect to orthodox judaism in general.
What theists are you talking about and can you give me any examples of those member generalizing the behavior of some atheists to atheists in general?
By the way, you never answered my question about that other article. Did you get around to reading it?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I'm done. Please proceed.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)the other sects of Judaism.
A cynic would remark that they are a good example of the old saying "Bad religion drives out good" if that cynic believed there were good religions.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)particularly when a new book comes out, lol.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)you sure do a good job promoting him, cbayer!
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Instead misconstruing it.
I would lump them together insofar as they all go by faith and all believe something without evidence On the other hand it would be, I think, unfair to tar them all with the same brush when it comes to the ill effects that they have on the world. There is no question that, at present, the most violent religion is Islam. Go back 500 years and youd have to make a different judgment.
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, mad cow disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the worlds great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."
So what is Dawkins saying here? He calls faith which is belief without evidence, as one of the great evils of the world. Notice, that in his first statement, he said you can't generalize about all religions EXCEPT when it comes to the affects of faith itself. So the author is either being dishonest, or, more likely, has their religious blinders on.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)One of the points that he makes is how it makes no sense to compare "faith" to a contagious disease or teaching religion to children as child abuse.
There is no scientific evidence to back up those kinds of inflammatory statements at all. None.
Yet Dawkins the scientist thinks it's perfectly ok to present his beliefs (and they are beliefs) as something akin to facts.
BTW, the author is a scientist. His position on religion is not clear, but his position on science is very clear.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Dawkins actually has a bad habit of putting disclaimers over his ideas, he will also agree that the research hasn't been done on those "inflammatory" statements, but it should be.
Though, if it were outside the context of that discussion about diseases, he would probably, and I think he has, labeled faith as a meme.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He still puts them out there as if they were facts, which they most certainly are not.
He's got a research foundation. Are they studying this? I doubt it, because frankly, the things he throws out there can't really be studied. Way too many variables.
To try and do a study that compared the effects of faith on the effects of AIDS is ludicrous on it's face. First of all, I can't think of a single person who would say that AIDS has benefitted them in some way, whereas there are many who would say that their faith has benefited them.
Saying faith is a meme is one thing, and I think there is possibly some testable validity in that. Saying it is comparable to smallpox sells books.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)inaccurate.
A quote from the man himself:
According to decrepitoldfool, I assert that teaching religion to children is child abuse. That is false. I have never asserted anything of the kind. I have said that LABELLING children with the religion of their parents is child abuse. That is very different from teaching religion to children. As I said in The God Delusion, and as I repeated in my post above, I am IN FAVOUR of teaching comparative religion, and teaching the Bible as literature. What I am against is labelling a child a Catholic child, Muslim child etc. I am, of course, equally opposed to labelling a child an atheist child.
- See more at: http://www.skepticink.com/azatheist/2013/05/02/richard-dawkins-and-child-abuse/#sthash.z5SWUhqg.dpuf
ON EDIT: To elaborate on my own beliefs on the matter, indoctrinating children into a particular religion is rife with abuse, but, depending on how its presented, varies greatly in damage to a child's emotional development. Fire and brimstone theology, taught to a child, is definitely abuse, its trying to control their behavior almost strictly based on fear. Emphasis on original sin can also be abusive, as are faith based misogyny, homophobia etc. taught to girls, homosexuals, etc.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)is child abuse is much better and, again, I don't think there is any kind of evidence that would support that.
The issue of indoctrination is an interesting one and there is no doubt that it happens, but some children are raised in homes where they are introduced and exposed to religion AND encouraged to ask questions and explore other belief systems.
He has also made the statement that there is no way for a child to know what they are. Again, there is no evidence to support this. I think some children do know.
Faith, by his own definition, is believing in something without evidence.... which is exactly we he frequently does.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)What's YOUR evidence for that? If you're true to form, you have none, but simply said that to be contrary and to try to paint Dawkins as off-base (which seems to have become a big part of your agenda here).
And can even you provide a link to Dawkins saying that there is no way for a child to know what they are? That would be a good start, given how common it is in this room for people to simply lie and invent things that Dawkins has never said. You know that as well as I do, though you would never call anyone on it in the name of honesty. In any case, the burden is on you to show that any child's religious identity can be self-established by the time their parents start labeling and indoctrinating them.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)to understand.
I doubt many children before the age of probably 10 or so actually know, they would identify with what their parents are, I doubt they actually understand the implications of the beliefs their parents hold. Remember, he also said labeling children as atheist is also child abuse.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Sometimes it's just a cultural reference, I think. Similar to saying "We are Jewish" for secular jews, a family may identify themselves as one thing or another, even though the kids really don't know.
In my church, kids were baptized at 13, reportedly the same age as Jesus. We were asked to take a course and then asked to make a personal decision on whether to join the church or not. The class was open for discussion, debate and disagreement. There may have been an expectation that one would agree to the baptism, but I don't think that there were any consequences if one said no.
I'm not sure how the labeling could be used to harm a child, though. Can you think of examples of that?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I think Dawkins once used the example of certain areas in Northern Ireland, where being labeled as either Protestant or Catholic can determine things such as who you can be friends with and who you can date and ultimately marry(sticking with labels here).
The issue is that its OTHER people labeling the kids, not necessarily the kids themselves.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But I would again suggest that the divisions in NI are more clannish and cultural than actual differences in religious beliefs.
And I bet many of the kids there pick up one of those labels themselves at a pretty young age.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)frankly it gets worse the more you read it, I actually clicked the link, he threw every smear you can think of at Dawkins, while quote-mining him.
I'm assuming you posted the article to expose the writer of it as a dishonest man.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And these aren't smears. These are legitimate points of contention that have been raised by both believers and non-believers.
When you are trying to make a point, gathering someone's comments is not quote-mining. He links to them, so that they can be read in context, and pulled out the ones that have caused the most controversy.
You may be a supporter of Dawkins. You may be a defender of Dawkins. Hell, you might even be an acolyte.
And you can disagree with the author, but that won't make him wrong.
No, I did not post this to expose the writer as a dishonest man.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)is, at the very least, stupid.
Laochtine
(394 posts)What my atheist pope says, I've heard it's a religion