Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, October 25, 2006 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Sermons and straw men

by Lawrence M. Krauss / Nature

NatureFrom Nature Magazine, Vol. 443, 26 October 2006

Lawrence M. Krauss
Early in The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins quotes Thomas Jefferson's statement: "I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence."

This eminently scientific sentiment was echoed two centuries later by the physicist Steven Weinberg, who, like Dawkins, is an outspoken critic of religion, but who has nevertheless suggested that most scientists simply don't spend enough time even thinking about God or religion to merit the label atheist.

But Richard Dawkins is a man on a mission. This new book is the culmination of his recent campaign, which has included a two-part television documentary, aired in Britain, to help humanity rid itself of what he surely views as one of its most vile creations: God.

Before I proceed further, I should, in the interests of full disclosure, confess that I have written exactly one fan letter that I can remember to an author. That letter was written to Richard Dawkins after the publication of a small book, River Out of Eden (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1995), which I felt was perhaps the most concise and cogent science writing, as well as the clearest discussion of the nature of evolution, I had yet read.

I wish that Dawkins, who has a gift for making science — in particular, evolutionary biology — both exciting and understandable to a broad audience, had continued to play to his strengths, which are desperately needed now more than ever as we confront growing attacks on the teaching of evolution, not just in the United States but in the UK and Europe.

Dawkins the preacher is less seductive. And make no mistake: this book is, for the most part, a well-referenced sermon. I just have no idea who the intended parishioners might be. In his preface, Dawkins claims he hopes to reach religious people who might have misgivings, either about the teachings of theirfaith or about the negative impact of religion in the modern world. For these people, Dawkins wants to demonstrate that atheism is "something to stand tall and be proud of ".

I found this slightly puzzling. I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I am not particularly proud of it. Indeed, I am rarely, if ever, proud of not believing in things. More generally, I think the strategy of focusing on telling people what not to believe is less compelling than positively demonstrating how the wonders of nature can suggest a world without God that is nevertheless both complete and wonderful — an argument that Dawkins reserves for the final few pages of the book. And while there is a lot to complain about in the ubiquitous facile piety so prevalent today, complaining can nevertheless start to get tiresome. Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (Headline, 1996) likewise too often mirrored Sagan's frustration at all those who over many years have continued to confront him with their superstitions, but it also conveyed his sense of awe and wonder about nature in a way that Dawkins elsewhere has so craftily displayed.

A less sympathetic reader than the author's wife (who apparently read the entire manuscript aloud to Dawkins for him to review) might have provided a more useful foil. Several indulgences detract from the flow, but more importantly, I was struck at how Dawkins' presentation, particularly in the early chapters where he builds his case against God, might offend those who, like myself, are quite sympathetic to his central thesis. I suspect that few thinking people of faith are unaware of the remarkable evil that has been done in the name of God, or the possibility that, although most cultures worship some god, this could be a mere reflection of the workings of the human brain rather than definitive evidence for God's reality. Yet Dawkins seems to suggest early on that even agnostics might never confront these issues and that he needs to "raise their consciousness", as he puts it. At the very least I find it doubtful that constantly questioning the intelligence of 'true believers' will be helpful in inducing any such reader to accept Dawkins' strongly argued thesis that both God and religion are nonsensical and harmful.

While I usually tend to begin a review with praise and end with reservations, the reverse order here reflects the progression of my own reading of The God Delusion. There are gems in the book, as one might expect from a writer as powerful as Dawkins, but most of them are in the second half of the volume. He ends the first half with what I found to be a less than compelling probabilistic argument against God. (Incidentally, I couldn't help wondering, somewhat facetiously, when Dawkins used an anthropic argument from cosmology to argue against God, that, although indeed only very rare universes may harbour life, if an infinite number of universes exist, could not at least one then harbour what might pass for a divine being?)

But after this Dawkins proceeds to brilliantly review the roots of modern morality and the changing moral 'zeitgeist', as he calls it. With authority and wit, he marvellously dissects the absurdity, hypocrisy and selectivity that is inherent in so much of modern biblical morality. Perhaps there can be no higher praise than to say that I am certain I will rememberand borrow many examples from this book in my own future discussions.

Finally, his treatment of religion and childhood is, I believe, precisely accurate. We do our children a great disservice (which Dawkins goes so far as to call abuse) by forcing religion upon them at an age where they are far too young to digest the deep and subtle issues associated with the possibility of divine purpose. In doing so, we encourage them to rely on potentially destructive emotions rather than to use their brains. And pondering how to build a world of adults that might result from the latter rather than the former is surely what motivates Dawkins here, even if his approach might also provoke some religious fundamentalists to harden their unfortunate belief that knowledge and reason are dangerous things, to be avoided at all costs.

Lawrence M. Krauss is Ambrose Swasey Professor, and director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics, at Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7079, USA. His most recent book is Hiding in the Mirror.

Comments 1 - 25 of 25 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #3125 by Nebularry on October 25, 2006 at 7:40 pm

Mr. Krauss makes an interesting observation. He says:

"I wish that Dawkins, who has a gift for making science — in particular, evolutionary biology — both exciting and understandable to a broad audience, had continued to play to his strengths, which are desperately needed now more than ever as we confront growing attacks on the teaching of evolution, not just in the United States but in the UK and Europe."

There is no doubt that Dawkins is widely respected for his science writing. As I see it, in "The God Delusion" he has turned the coin to the other side, so to speak, and written about things which may not be his strength. Nevertheless, they are things about which he is genuinely concerned and which should concern us all.

Perhaps it is high time that more scientists thought about God and religion and the gross damage arrogant religious certitude does in the world.

2. Comment #3141 by Jonathan Dore on October 25, 2006 at 10:27 pm

What's puzzling about reviews such as this, and Andrew Brown's in Prospect -- both presumably well-informed people sympathetic, as Krausse says here, to Dawkins's basic position -- is their complete absence of any sense of urgency about the rise of religious fanaticism and the steps that might be needed to combat it. They both seem wilfully to misunderstand who the book is aimed at, and give no hint that they recognize the rising tide of supernaturalism and increasing attacks on science to be real phenomena, with real political and social outcomes that demand real actions in response.

3. Comment #3148 by Martin on October 26, 2006 at 12:39 am

I have to agree with Krauss on a lot of points.

Not least that people prefer to stand for something than against something.

I also think that Richard *is* preaching. That doesn't mean that what Richard is saying is wrong. If we get down to it, anyone that believes passionatly about their point of view and feels others should too will preach. This includes politicans, environmentalists and faith-heads.

I believe that the reason why Krauss ended on the positive aspects of the book, instead of his (self confessed) usual style is that for the most part Krauss actually agrees with TGD. I suspect he just disagrees with Richard's style and or methods, and as Richard himself admits, many of his colleagues and peers feel the same.

I consider Krauss review to be overall a positive one, despite what I'd consider constructive critism of the book.

If we nitpick the good reviews we are hurting ourselves. In fact, if we nitpick at all we look petty. Leave the nitpicking to the faith-heads, they do it too well for us to be able to compete with them anyway.

4. Comment #3157 by Youssef51 on October 26, 2006 at 2:28 am

"I just have no idea who the intended parishioners might be."

huh?

Then who's buying all those copies of The God Delusion?

Must be the parishioners and there must be a lot of them.

5. Comment #3163 by Clive Bradley on October 26, 2006 at 3:38 am

johnc

I find myself with mixed feelings about much of this. In these debates, I tend to agree with you - "provisional" truth against absolutes, and so on.

But in arguments after the screening of "The Root of All Evil" I found myself defending Dawkins: when someone's telling you the earth is 6,000 years old, it seems pretty reasonable to say, "No it's not. It categorically is not." That truth is provisional isn't really to the point in *that* argument.

It's the context of the debates, of course. But as for TGD itself, it seems to me it presents the case provocatively, forthrightly, robustly - and entertainingly - with very good reason. A more nuanced, subtle argument would be in a different kind of book.

6. Comment #3165 by Greywizard on October 26, 2006 at 3:44 am

I think Comment #3141 by Jonathan Dore is not only insightful, but crucial. The rise of religious fanaticisms, even at the heart of liberal Christian traditions (see 'A Loss of Faith', by Michael Hampson -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1923244,00.html) is cause for enormous concern. Reviewers address Dawkins book thinks that this whole debate is being carried out in a benign and polite way, when the issue is becoming one of global concern and indeed strife. This urgency is reflected in Dawkins' style and approach. It should not be considered a flaw.

7. Comment #3166 by Greywizard on October 26, 2006 at 3:46 am

Or, correcting my own style. I think Comment #3141 by Jonathan Dore is not only insightful, but crucial. The rise of religious fanaticisms, even at the heart of liberal Christian traditions (see 'A Loss of Faith', by Michael Hampson -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1923244,00.html) is cause for enormous concern. Reviewers addressing Dawkins book seem to think that this whole debate is being carried out in a benign and polite way, when the issue is becoming one of global concern and indeed strife. This urgency is reflected in Dawkins' style and approach. It should not be considered a flaw.

8. Comment #3203 by Diplo on October 26, 2006 at 10:21 am

"I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but I am not particularly proud of it. Indeed, I am rarely, if ever, proud of not believing in things."

Luckily people are not crashing planes into skyscrapers in the name of Santa or holding back scientific and moral advances because of their belief in Santa. Perhaps if they were then it would be time to stand up and proclaim, with pride, that you don't believe what they believe?

9. Comment #3216 by Michael on October 26, 2006 at 2:04 pm

I would also like to add that the consciousness raising that the reviewer was unaware of was emphatically not one of extolling the virtues of science to the public. But instead that sometimes you need a sledgehammer to do it.
And this particular book is just such a sledgehammer. The consciousness that needed raising was of the idea that someone needs to make some noise.

If americas trend towards religion shows us anything, it's that the old ways of spreading science, while not outdated, need a new edge.

10. Comment #3217 by island on October 26, 2006 at 2:07 pm

Lawrence, your review was fair and accurate.

11. Comment #3219 by Anonymous on October 26, 2006 at 2:14 pm

Dr Krauss,
I do believe that your review was overall a positive one, and I don't think Professor Dawkins would mind some constructive criticism. However, I very much disagree that belief in god and Santa are on the same footing. If I tell some one I don't believe in God I will be asked to justify myself(ironically, as they should be the one to). I do not think I will be confronted similarly about Santa.

12. Comment #3253 by Rieux on October 27, 2006 at 12:32 am

johnc wrote:
Sam Harris raises this very problem - how do we support moderate Muslims to effect the required changes in Islamic culture to bring it into the modern world? Surely not by piously intoning that all religion is superstition and arrant nonsense.

Well, goodness--as I read The End of Faith, Harris sure seems to be "piously intoning" almost exactly that. And especially with regard to Islam. (Are you using the verb "raises" in some obscure way? I.e., are you accusing Harris of said "intonation"? That would make a fair amount of sense.)

The fact that [A] some of us may believe all religion is based on fantasy does not [B] make such as an intellectualisation the basis for effective action.

I agree that B does not self-evidently logically follow from A, but (as this thread, among many others, makes clear) many, many of us agree with Dawkins that in the particular context of here and now, such an "intellecualisation" is our best shot for a "basis for effective action" against the rise of unreason.

Dawkins himself makes it abundantly clear that he thinks the current state of the world does not call for people like him to write kind treatises in appreciation of liberal-religious beliefs; rather, he apparently believes, what the current situation calls for is clear explanations of the errors of even those relatively innocent lines of thought.

You and Krauss (and surely many others) recoil at the baldness of Dawkins' tactics; but many of us believe that those tactics are exactly what is needed in 2006 America/Britain/etc. Yes, TGD will alienate some people. It'll also do a whole lot of good--and (we submit) more good than it would have done had he been more reserved in his rhetoric.

As for the Australian controversy you cite--well, obviously Dawkins' target isn't (narrowly) Islam, and his intended audience isn't (primarily) Australian. Even if a harshly critical essay on Islam would be a bad idea in the Australian case, it would not follow that Dawkins' essay--on a different topic, and intended for a different audience--is therefore poorly pitched.

13. Comment #3267 by maryhelena on October 27, 2006 at 3:57 am

“In the end, we should be fighting for a secular and humane society; if we achieve that the secular minds will follow. Dawkins is right in one sense, but he has process the wrong way around.”

johnc

Having ‘the process the wrong way around’ is bad enough. It’s Dawkins mindset that is beginning to bother me. He seems incapable of listening to the major point made in many ‘negative’ reviews i.e. that a red flag is being raised, by fellow atheists, and by others sympathetic to his general position, regarding his ‘bull in a china shop’ approach to the problem. His attitude might well prove to be counter-productive. Exposing a split, however small, within the atheist camp, is no cause for cheer. Condemning his fellow travellers for launching into a “moaning, defeatist caterwaul” is surely the height of insensitivity - and a sad reflection on his own intellectual integrity.

On a side note: thanks for the info re Australia. Indeed among the fanatics there are many moderates. Putting everyone in one basket is not acceptable. (I’m in South Africa where we have a big Muslim population - as well as a long standing tradition of ancestor worship among the African population - one simply can’t go around with an intellectually superior manner. That is no way to live a life!)

What Dawkins seems not to get is that even though the ‘moderates’ might have an irrational theology of some sort - he just has to learn to live with it!

Being irrational is part of our nature. No one is rational all the time. That is why I don’t think Dawkins can win any war with religion. Reason, logic, has it’s place, particularly in Dawkins’ own field. However, there are other areas in our lives where our irrational nature can function. In whatever manner we express our irrational nature, from buying a lotto ticket to taking an instant dislike to some person or another, or falling in love - to letting our irrational nature take full flight in theology - we will seek to express irrationality in some way in our lives.

In this sense reason cannot ever replace irrationality. Both are part of our human experience. Trying for a win/loose situation is nonsensical. We have to allow areas in our lives where each of these two elements of our nature can function.

If someone finds belief in god helpful in their lives, if it brings them comfort or what have - then so be it. Even medical science recognizes the value of a placebo!

Dawkins wants to raise consciousness. But a mind cannot be forced. One does not put a gun to a man’s head and get him to renounce his intellectual beliefs. And that, on one level, is what Dawkins, with The God Delusion, is attempting to do. Sure, he is not literally going to pull the trigger - but he does want to, intellectually speaking, to negate irrational belief systems.

Although there might be some merit in an instant, Damascus, conversion - the chance that such a conversion is sustainable long term is perhaps another matter. (‘no atheists in foxholes’ probably has some grain of ‘truth’ in it….). Alexander Fleming once remarked that ‘chance favours a prepared mind’. Looks like it’s more a case of doing ones homework than expecting a sudden flash of light!

Doing the homework, giving our intellectual decks a clean sweep, is only a very small part of any attempt to change our social environment. And it is here, in the vast difference between theory and practice, that Dawkins is failing to get the bigger picture.

People will believe irrational things. The way for any rational society to accommodate this irrationality is to put boundaries up. Political and social structures that are strong enough to stand any assault. The present political situation, where fundamentalists are often calling the shots, indicates that the current political structures have failed.

The big question is whether the political structures can be patched up - or if a re-think is in order. Either way there is much room here for activism - much room for Dawkins to use all the resources of his great intellect. Knocking fundamentalist theology is small stuff - and as that old saying goes: Don’t sweat the small stuff!. This is the big question - not whether god exists or whether god does not exist.

Theology can provide a never-ending debate. Faced with the reality of a fundamentalist political assault , engaging in a debate with it is a waste of time. The reality of massive social problems, apart from the fundamentalist ones, indicates that allowing ourselves such a purely contemplative luxury as dabbling with theology if foolhardy . It is to divert attention away from the far bigger political problem.

14. Comment #3269 by Martin on October 27, 2006 at 4:38 am

maryhelena,

The issue here as I see it is that what you consider to be "small stuff" differs from what Richard thinks the "small stuff" is.

He thinks ID, creationism, veils and all that other stuff is the "small stuff". He thinks that is a battle in a larger war, the war to eliminate the idiocy that is religion. He acts on that presumption and accepts that it will cause friction and is not politically expedient, as he has often said himself.

Also as both Richard and Sam have said it is the moderates (indirectly) that allow the fanatics to hide and prevail in our society. By respecting "Islam" we have to respect not just those that are nice and friendly but also those that think the way to paradise is to kill as many of us as possible, because, if you come down to it, their views of the Koran or the Bible or whatever are just as legitimate as anyone elses.

The difference is that Richad and the fundamentalists are honest, the religious moderates are not. The fundamentalists have read their holy book, and take it the literal truth. Richard and other atheists like him have read the book and applied logic and reason to it and found to to be utter nonsense. The religious moderates on the other hand tend not to know their scriptures as well as the fundamentalists nor those atheists that oppose them. Either that or they just ignore those bits that don't fit our society anymore.

The religious moderates are the true agnostics. They apply modernal rationality to their views and their outlook on life, but still cling to some iron age book of wisdom that as the years pass becomes less and less relevant.

If religious moderates really want to do something to further religion, they need to update their scripture to bring it into the modern world. If scientists were still working from Iron age documents then I wouldn't be able to sit at this computer in this office, in this city, debating with you.

15. Comment #3271 by maryhelena on October 27, 2006 at 5:28 am

Before anyone decides that I’m writing nonsense…..


The sentence that read:

“Indeed among the fanatics there are many moderates”

Should have read:

“Indeed among the fundamentalists there are many moderates”.

16. Comment #3279 by William on October 27, 2006 at 6:28 am

Hi MaryHelena! I've read many of your posts in here - and I'm certain you believe in God. Good for you. I don't. I'll explain why:

>>Being irrational is part of our nature. No one is rational all the time. That is why I don’t think Dawkins can win any war with religion. Reason, logic, has it’s place, particularly in Dawkins’ own field. However, there are other areas in our lives where our irrational nature can function. In whatever manner we express our irrational nature, from buying a lotto ticket to taking an instant dislike to some person or another, or falling in love - to letting our irrational nature take full flight in theology - we will seek to express irrationality in some way in our lives.<<

I don't disagree with what you said here. Your comments are normally polite. Consider this though:

You say that logic and reason has its place. I'd say that its place is ABOVE Religion, because Religious ideas/ doctrines/ texts are no way to live one's life in the 21st Century. Consider HOW SUBJUGATED women were, when the Bible was taken as THE WORD OF GOD. Women were NOT ALOUD TO TALK IN CHURCH. It was FORBIDDEN. Women were NOT ALOUD TO BE MINISTERS. It was FORBIDDEN. Women were mainly treated as sexual slaves/ useless 2nd-class citizens in the Bible and throughout history. This is CLEARLY INCORRECT. Women are as IMPORTANT as men. Do we agree? Do YOU STILL BELIEVE IN A GOD THAT SUBJUGATES WOMEN?Do you believe this is a correct philosophy?

Consider EVERY DEATH since Biblical times. EVERY MURDER, EVERY WAR, EVERY SINGLE DEATH. The number must be in the Billions. 100,000,000 alone died in wars during the 20th Century. HOW MANY DEATHS DOES IT TAKE FOR YOUR GOD TO STOP IT MARYHELENA? When is it enough?

Cannot God Stop this anytime 'He' (why is He a 'He' anyway? Female subjugation again?), so wishes? When will he decide enough deaths is enough? 5 Billion? 10 Billion? 20 Billion? A Gazillion? Why even create beings capable of suffering anyway? Every living thing on this planet will suffer. Why not make it perfect in the first instant of creation?

If God CAN'T stop it, then he is not OMNIPOTENT.
If God WON'T stop it, then he is MALEVOLENT and not the LOVING GOD, THEISTS ESPOUSE.
Therefore, if he is unable/ unwilling to stop it, then maybe he doesn't exist?

You believe in a perfect being, no? PERFECT implies whole, entire, complete. WHY create IMPERFECT beings then? Was he Bored? Lonely? A PERFECT BEING CANNOT create an IMPERFECT BEING. Because a PERFECT BEING CAN ONLY CONCEIVE OF PERFECTION IN EVERYTHING IT DOES. It is a logical fallacy and a contradiction. Only AN IMPERFECT BEING could create IMPERFECT Beings - in which case, the God of the Bible cannot exist as an all-poweful, all-loving, all-knowing God. See why Logic is MORE IMPORTANT than Faith?

HOW DID he create us anyway? Does 'He' have hands? Did he mix us up in a petri dish of chemicals? Do Theists EVEN HAVE A CLUE as to HOW and WHY and WHEN? Or do Theists just ACCEPT that God 'Did it'? I can't just ACCEPT any idea. I am an Atheist, because it IS UNLIKELY GOD EXISTS. If it could be demonstrated that I was wrong - fine. I'd hold my hands up and be pleasantly relieved. If a Theist was SHOWN that God DIDN'T exist - where would you be then? TOTALLY REJECTED? DEPRESSED?

This is the underlying message that Professor Dawkins is trying to get across. That to live this life, does NOT require blind faith. That life may be completely devoid of a 'reason' - and thus we have to make a reason ourselves i.e, do charity work, help the poor, help the starving; create a better world for future generations, be a good spouse, be a good parent... etc., etc.,

It AMAZES me that 2 people, from different relgious backgrounds can sit in the same room, yet 'respect' each other irrational (your words, not mine), beliefs - but if an Atheist appears, they view that person as UnGodly, Unclean a lesser being of some sort.

According to Faith, a vile murdering sinner, who repents, can get into Heaven. Yet a homosexual doctor, who saves thousands of lives, including children's lives CANNOT. According to Faith, God will send me to hell, for SWEARING his name. According to Faith, a finite being, in a finite body, will spend eternity (infinite) in hell for a finite crime.

These rules are preposterous. They can't be defended any longer. I will NEVER go back to being a Christian or defending blind faith. It is abhorrent.

Kind Regards, William.

17. Comment #3282 by maryhelena on October 27, 2006 at 6:51 am

Hi, Martin

Painting everyone with the same brush just won’t do. It surely is not a very scientific way to go about things! Just because theology throws up it’s fanatics every now and again is no reason to, out of hand, to condemn theology. Theology has no monopoly on ‘bad apples’.

“By respecting "Islam" we have to respect not just those that are nice and friendly but also those that think the way to paradise is to kill as many of us as possible, because, if you come down to it, their views of the Koran or the Bible or whatever are just as legitimate as anyone elses.”

I don’t think that follows. There is surely a big difference in respecting Islam as a theological avenue that many people find useful in their lives, to a position of judging, to respect or disrespect, the actions of any individual Muslim.

Condemn the deed, not the man. That way will allow us always to uphold not only our own dignity, but the dignity of everyone else as well. I’m just thinking here - but is this not something that might well be at the root of a lot of the criticism of The God Delusion: The feeling that such a frontal attack upon the intelligence of millions of people - might be perceived as an attack upon their dignity. (I just know, from living in SA, that human dignity was something very prominent in the freedom struggle here. Mandela is quoted as saying, from his prison cell: “Any man or institution that tries to rob me of my dignity will lose”). If this is the case, then The God Delusion has strayed into territory that Dawkins, as a scientist, is ill equipped to deal with.

Regarding the ‘enablers’, those moderates who take a side-step when the fanatics are running loose? Apart from the obvious - that we all have the freedom to choose our battles, I think condemning moderates is not only counter-productive but betrays a lack of understanding about theology. One can, as they say, play any old tune on the christian bible. Christianity is a ‘take your pick’ theology - evidenced by the goodness knows how many sects we have today. Moderates are well aware that wilder versions of christian theology are out there. Undoubtedly, this fact will be an embarrassment to many moderates. However, they cannot attack fundamentalist fanatics without simultaneously exposing their own vulnerability. Catch-22. The God Delusion will not help to resolve their dilemma. And surely, it is not more religious wars that we seek, no more burning of heretics.

It’s back to the political table I’m afraid. There really is no other way to rid our political/social environment from the scourge of fundamentalism.

18. Comment #3283 by maryhelena on October 27, 2006 at 6:55 am

Hi MaryHelena! I've read many of your posts in here - and I'm certain you believe in God. Good for you. I don't. I'll explain why:

Hi, William

I've just seen your post - no time to reply right now. But my goodness me you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick.........

William, I've been an atheist for well over 20 years - and I'm not about to change that position any time soon....

19. Comment #3302 by maryhelena on October 27, 2006 at 9:13 am

“You say that logic and reason has its place. I'd say that its place is ABOVE Religion, because Religious ideas/ doctrines/ texts are no way to live one's life in the 21st Century.

William

I don’t buy the idea of a win/loose situation between reason and religion. Religion, in all it’s many manifestations, has always been around. That is the reality we live with. It is delusion to think that science is going to blast it out of existence by the latest in scientific reasoning.

Sure, we need reason and logic to survive. That is fundamental. But survival is not the whole story of our existence. Humans, in contrast to other animals, are not satisfied with mere survival. We want more. We want, for want of a better word, to flourish. We want to have it all. We have dreams - but we can act on our dreams. We don’t only see things as they are. We see the possibility that what is does not have to be.

Sometimes reason actually takes a back seat - even with some of the greatest scientific discoveries. Einstein is quoted as saying: ‘There are no logical paths to such natural laws, only intuition can reach them.” Karl Popper says: ‘There is no such thing as a logical method of having new ideas, or a logical reconstruction of this process. Every great discovery contains an irrational element or a creative intuition”. (Both quotes taken from Lyall Watson’s Beyond Supernature).

It is not just theology that needs it’s leaps of faith!

What is needed between religion and politics is an accommodation - not a war which neither side can win. We just cannot separate people into the intelligent people and the stupid. (the sheep and the goats, goodness me….).As another old saying goes: The heart has it's reasons; there often being some sense to our emotions. Likewise, the mind has it’s potential for irrationality - a potential without which even science would find itself shortchanged.

There is much more to our humanity than reason and logic - however high a value in any particular context we might place upon them. My late husband often used to say to me: ‘Just give me a hug, not another goddamn idea”
:
Logic has taken us far - to the moon and back. It has failed to comprehend the dynamics involved in our relationships with one another. Logic is not a prescription, it cannot be the formula, for dealing with the reality of religion or theology, or race or ethnicity. It seems that there is a core to human nature that will remain unfathomable to science. I’m not talking here about the science of, for example, ethnicity. I’m talking about what these elements in our lives means to a particular individual, or group. It’s the old question I suppose - it’s not what is, it’s why? Science cannot tell us ‘why’. And because it cannot do so - it should not attempt to demonize individuals for looking for meaning elsewhere.

20. Comment #3311 by Jonathan Dore on October 27, 2006 at 10:17 am

johnc writes:
"3. The legitimacy of someone's interpretation of a scripture is not our concern. The strength of our skepticism is that we can comfortably say to all sects - "argue among yourselves, we're not interested", which is in fact what the majority of people in the more secular countries actually do. Bemused indifference to whether the person of God is three-in-one, all-for-one or one-for-all sets a better example to our children than angry invective about nonsensical theology."

This laissez-faire approach is what has prevailed in Western Europe for the last fifty years -- certainly in Britain, where I spent the first forty years of my life. But the unexpected weakness of this position, as it's been exposed over the last few years, is that de-Christianizing (in this case) a population through benign neglect ("we're not interested") does little to equip them intellectually to respond to those whose brand of faith is more exotically intense than they are accustomed to. It's also become apparent that those of us who have consciously rejected supernaturalism are greatly outnumbered by those who are non-religious simply by default and have never bothered to think through their position. Such people tend to be more vulnerable to religious argument than one might assume. Witness the small but significant number of white Europeans with non-religious (certainly non-Islamic) or only nominally religious backgrounds who, post-9/11, have found themselves mesmerized by Islam and become converts -- and that, at a time when one might logically assume that such a religion would appear less attractive than ever. Coupled with the recent entrenchment in Britain of the power of religious institutions in state education (which is more or less the result of Tony Blair's personal religiosity), with all the implications for the indoctrination of future generations that that implies, and it seems clear to me that, unless we are simply content to have a tide of religiosity rise above our heads (a "Dover Beach" in reverse, perhaps?) simply for the want of anyone opposing it, "bemused indifference" is no longer a sufficient response to the well-organized and well-motivated opponents we face (and they certainly regard themselves as our opponents, even if we would like to think we aren't). We have to give people who may never have given much thought to religion access to positive reasons why a supernaturalist outlook is *not* a good idea, give them some intellectual tools for critical evaluation of religious tenets, and give them a sense that a solid community of people who have consciously chosen not to be believers does actually exist. This is one of the tasks that Dawkins's book performs, and the sense of relief expressed by so many posters here at discovering a community (albeit virtual) of unbelievers shows how much it is needed.

"2. Respecting people's right to hold a religious belief does not imply toleration of criminal or anti-social behaviour. We can respect everyone's right to a belief (be they atheist or jihadist) without agreeing that that belief gives anyone the right to violate social norms (be it by suicide bombing, raping "immodest women", or introducing religion in public classrooms)."

No argument there, except to point out that the aim of the Mufti of Australia and others like him is to effect a *shift* in "social norms" -- witness the gradual increase among Muslim women in the West wearing ever more veiling, from the hair-covering hijab to the face-covering niqab to the body-covering burkah, each step in the progressive dehumanization of their wearers becoming steadily "normalized" on the streets of Western cities. Norms are not givens, and if there are any you don't want to change you need to defend them.

Regarding the political expediency of attacking religious moderates, I actually think there is a very positive role to be played by such as Dawkins and Harris. Religious believers are so accustomed to having their beliefs discussed in a tone, not just of respect (which every human owes to every other) but of deferential reverence, that their outraged bewilderment at having them publicly examined with the same unembarrassed acuity one would bring to a political or scientific concept can only, in the long run, make them more accommodating to those who they regard as less extreme. If it's politically savvy for atheists to make common cause with religious moderates, it also makes sense for fundamentalists to make common cause with Gouldians, as the lesser of two evils. If that causes fundies to acknowledge and abandon some of their grosser idiocies in the interests of alliance with a "sensible" opponent, then a shift in intellectual norms will have been effected for the better. But it will *only* have happened because the Dawkinsians forced the issue. If you'll forgive a cheesy analogy from popular drama, the same psychology is at work in "good cop/bad cop" interrogation routines: the crim doesn't have a motive to co-operate with the good cop until the bad one works him over.

21. Comment #3316 by Widgetmaker on October 27, 2006 at 11:09 am

William,

Regarding Jehova's Witnesses, I usually just tell them I'm a Mormon. ;-)

I am, in fact, not a Mormon. When I first tried that, I had been visited recently by some Mormons passing out their book. At the time, I think it occurred to me that they wouldn't try to convert one of their own, but that I didn't want to get beseiged by requests to attend their building (whatever they call it). Then I thought, "I'll tell them I'm a Mormon." Of course, when the Mormons come, I tell them I'm a Jehova's witness. :D

It seems to work, though I'll confess that I don't know precisely why. For what it's worth...

-Widget

P.S. They still come around a lot, apparently they have a quota or something. They just don't stay long or try to offer any literature.

22. Comment #3321 by maryhelena on October 27, 2006 at 11:24 am

Jonathan wrote:

“the crim doesn't have a motive to co-operate with the good cop until the bad one works him over.”

I’m afraid your analogy does not fit the situation at all!

Firstly, to label religionists as the criminals is preposterous.
Secondly, hoping that they will co-operate with the god cop after the bad cop (presumably Dawkins with The God Delusion) works them over is a pipe-dream.

Dawkins is not going to accomplish what the Inquisition could not. Dawkins is not going to accomplish what throwing christians to the lions failed to do i.e. working people over by rough handling them has never succeeded in destroying theology.

Undoubtedly, there will be some people who will find The God Delusion a breath of much needed fresh air. However, we are in living in precarious times with fundamentalism on the prowl - something we all seem to agree on….. Consequently, an approach that brings people into the fold one by one is not going to have the sort of impact that is required at this time. It is no longer, if it ever was, a case of numbers. Instead it is a situation that requires a radical, emergency, political agenda. It is political action that should be paramount at this time, not individual enlightenment. When it is time to man the barricades we need strategy not debate. Plenty of time for debate once the lion is confined to his cage…..

23. Comment #3323 by maryhelena on October 27, 2006 at 11:27 am

William, no problem - things are not always what they seem to be......

Hi Mary!

Sorry! Wholeheartedly apologise!

Kind Regards, William.

24. Comment #16827 by scooternyc on January 9, 2007 at 3:05 am

 avatar"At the very least I find it doubtful that constantly questioning the intelligence of 'true believers' will be helpful in inducing any such reader to accept Dawkins' strongly argued thesis that both God and religion are nonsensical and harmful."

Having worked as a therapist with the substance abuse/addiction community, I can tell you that the 'constant questioning of intelligence' of those who are addicted in order to support their breakdown of denial is quite useful.

If you do not continue to unmask the many ways in which an addict is keeping their denial in motion, then you do them little support. It is by uncovering each delusion of life that helps the addict come to understand his/her responsibility in life, that which is accountable, for the reality they are creating.

In other words, you can have your addiction, but you do so consciously without deference to some drama created out of past experiences and without attempting to understand your behavior and it's consequences.

Other Comments by scooternyc

25. Comment #16832 by JohnC on January 9, 2007 at 4:27 am

 avatar
Having worked as a therapist with the substance abuse/addiction community, I can tell you that the 'constant questioning of intelligence' of those who are addicted in order to support their breakdown of denial is quite useful.


The analogy between addiction and belief is interesting but hardly compelling. Clearly there are a large number of Christians, for instance, who are very intelligent indeed and whose faith does not entail the sort of everyday disconfirmation which confronts every alcoholic and addict. Despite what some people here might like to believe, people such as Ken Miller are not in a state of cognitive dissonance that is the daily reality of the intelligent addict.

Other Comments by JohnC
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: