Print
How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?
by Peter McKnight
Reposted from:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=8a47c504-1b56-4492-805d-90f427e20422
Author of The God Delusion in person is a lot more open-minded than his critics would have you believe.
It's often been said that there are two Richard Dawkinses. First, there's the fire-breathing Dawkins of literature, whose books and essays declare religion a virus of the mind, "comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate," who maintains that religious instruction is a form of child mental abuse, and who will brook no opposition in his war on religious faith.
Then there's the personal Dawkins, the debonair Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, a man who is polite and gracious to a fault.
I had the pleasure of sitting down with the second Dawkins Monday morning in Vancouver, so I decided to ask him about the first, and in particular about the many criticisms levelled at him and his most recent book, the bestselling The God Delusion.
The book, which is a sustained attack on both belief in God and the negative consequences that can flow from religious belief, has provoked a litany of hostile reviews, essays and even book-length treatises from theologians, scientists and other observers.
Chief among the criticisms is that The God Delusion presents an all-too-rosy picture of atheism -- Dawkins cites John Lennon's Imagine to paint the picture of what an atheist world would look like -- while accusing religion of inspiring all manner of unspeakable acts, including crusades, wars, witch hunts, suicide bombings, and on and on and on.
Now on that latter point, Dawkins will get no argument from me: Religion has driven otherwise good people to do many evil things.
But what of atheism? Surely Stalin's purges, including his execution of orthodox priests and nuns, and Mao's attempts to eliminate Buddhism count for something, no?
Well, yes and no. According to Dawkins, Stalin was an atheist who did evil things, but there is no direct "logical pathway" from atheism to bad deeds, as there is with religious faith. I have to say I don't entirely understand Dawkins's thinking here -- how, after all, could the executions of religious figures not follow logically from the promotion of atheism?
Dawkins does mention, a la Nietzsche, that many religions' belief in the afterlife could lead believers to commit unspeakable acts because they believe they will be rewarded in heaven. This would represent a logical pathway from religion to bad deeds, and it does seem that atheists, who don't believe in an afterlife, wouldn't be duped by claptrap about heavenly rewards.
But here's the rub: Atheists have not only engaged in suicide bombings, but have pioneered the practice -- specifically, the Marxist Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. Dawkins is aware of this -- despite writing in The God Delusion that a world free from religion would also be free from suicide bombing -- and he does seem somewhat puzzled by the phenomenon.
But he offers that perhaps it's because Marxism itself acts something like a religion in its appeal to a higher power -- the Party, rather than God. And in this Dawkins may be absolutely right, though it reveals that an atheist philosophy can indeed operate as a religion, and therefore offer a logical pathway to evil deeds.
Dawkins -- in person at least, if not in print -- also admits that politics often plays a large role in much strife commonly attributed to religion. Despite "imagining" in The God Delusion that Northern Ireland's "troubles" would not exist in an atheistic world, he now freely acknowledges that the troubles were largely a political matter.
But he maintains that religion merely served to exacerbate the troubles, by, for example, having segregated schools for Catholics and Protestants. Dawkins may be right about this too, but it reveals something important about his thinking: He doesn't necessarily think religion is the root of all evil, but rather is perhaps only a branch.
The root, strangely enough, is that which first made Dawkins famous -- evolution. Dawkins acknowledges that people have a natural tendency toward tribalism, a product of evolution, and that this is the real problem. Religion is a problem too, but only because it encourages tribalism, rather than because it's responsible for tribalist instincts in the first place. This might come as a surprise to those aware of Dawkins's 2006 BBC documentary about religion, peppered with interviews with fundamentalists, and provocatively titled The Root of Evil? But the personal Dawkins is full of surprises.
When asked for, example, whether religion might drive people to do good things -- whether there might be a logical pathway from religious faith to good deeds -- Dawkins, while not particularly warm to the idea, allowed it as a possibility. And he acknowledged that there is much people can learn from the "great books of religion."
Similarly when confronted with scholarship concerning the important influence religion played in the development of scientific method in both the Islamic world and the Christian West, Dawkins, while admitting to a lack of knowledge of the history of science, said "it wouldn't surprise me if religion had predisposed people to do better science."
Nevertheless, Dawkins believes that religion now has nothing to offer science, and hence there is no point in trying to reconcile the two disciplines.
But can we reconcile the two Richard Dawkinses -- the literary one who has nary a good word to say about religion, and the personal one who admits that religion doesn't have a stranglehold on terror, may inspire ethical behaviour, and may even have contributed to the scientific enterprise?
I must admit I have a difficult time reconciling these disparate figures, but I can say this: Richard Dawkins the person is a lot more open minded than his critics would have you believe. And perhaps that's because the personal Richard Dawkins is a lot more open to contrary evidence, and much more nuanced in his thinking, than the literary one.
Dawkins speaks at the Chan Centre at the University of B.C. at 2 p.m. today.
pmcknight@png.canwest.com
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=8a47c504-1b56-4492-805d-90f427e20422
Author of The God Delusion in person is a lot more open-minded than his critics would have you believe.
It's often been said that there are two Richard Dawkinses. First, there's the fire-breathing Dawkins of literature, whose books and essays declare religion a virus of the mind, "comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate," who maintains that religious instruction is a form of child mental abuse, and who will brook no opposition in his war on religious faith.
Then there's the personal Dawkins, the debonair Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, a man who is polite and gracious to a fault.
I had the pleasure of sitting down with the second Dawkins Monday morning in Vancouver, so I decided to ask him about the first, and in particular about the many criticisms levelled at him and his most recent book, the bestselling The God Delusion.
The book, which is a sustained attack on both belief in God and the negative consequences that can flow from religious belief, has provoked a litany of hostile reviews, essays and even book-length treatises from theologians, scientists and other observers.
Chief among the criticisms is that The God Delusion presents an all-too-rosy picture of atheism -- Dawkins cites John Lennon's Imagine to paint the picture of what an atheist world would look like -- while accusing religion of inspiring all manner of unspeakable acts, including crusades, wars, witch hunts, suicide bombings, and on and on and on.
Now on that latter point, Dawkins will get no argument from me: Religion has driven otherwise good people to do many evil things.
But what of atheism? Surely Stalin's purges, including his execution of orthodox priests and nuns, and Mao's attempts to eliminate Buddhism count for something, no?
Well, yes and no. According to Dawkins, Stalin was an atheist who did evil things, but there is no direct "logical pathway" from atheism to bad deeds, as there is with religious faith. I have to say I don't entirely understand Dawkins's thinking here -- how, after all, could the executions of religious figures not follow logically from the promotion of atheism?
Dawkins does mention, a la Nietzsche, that many religions' belief in the afterlife could lead believers to commit unspeakable acts because they believe they will be rewarded in heaven. This would represent a logical pathway from religion to bad deeds, and it does seem that atheists, who don't believe in an afterlife, wouldn't be duped by claptrap about heavenly rewards.
But here's the rub: Atheists have not only engaged in suicide bombings, but have pioneered the practice -- specifically, the Marxist Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. Dawkins is aware of this -- despite writing in The God Delusion that a world free from religion would also be free from suicide bombing -- and he does seem somewhat puzzled by the phenomenon.
But he offers that perhaps it's because Marxism itself acts something like a religion in its appeal to a higher power -- the Party, rather than God. And in this Dawkins may be absolutely right, though it reveals that an atheist philosophy can indeed operate as a religion, and therefore offer a logical pathway to evil deeds.
Dawkins -- in person at least, if not in print -- also admits that politics often plays a large role in much strife commonly attributed to religion. Despite "imagining" in The God Delusion that Northern Ireland's "troubles" would not exist in an atheistic world, he now freely acknowledges that the troubles were largely a political matter.
But he maintains that religion merely served to exacerbate the troubles, by, for example, having segregated schools for Catholics and Protestants. Dawkins may be right about this too, but it reveals something important about his thinking: He doesn't necessarily think religion is the root of all evil, but rather is perhaps only a branch.
The root, strangely enough, is that which first made Dawkins famous -- evolution. Dawkins acknowledges that people have a natural tendency toward tribalism, a product of evolution, and that this is the real problem. Religion is a problem too, but only because it encourages tribalism, rather than because it's responsible for tribalist instincts in the first place. This might come as a surprise to those aware of Dawkins's 2006 BBC documentary about religion, peppered with interviews with fundamentalists, and provocatively titled The Root of Evil? But the personal Dawkins is full of surprises.
When asked for, example, whether religion might drive people to do good things -- whether there might be a logical pathway from religious faith to good deeds -- Dawkins, while not particularly warm to the idea, allowed it as a possibility. And he acknowledged that there is much people can learn from the "great books of religion."
Similarly when confronted with scholarship concerning the important influence religion played in the development of scientific method in both the Islamic world and the Christian West, Dawkins, while admitting to a lack of knowledge of the history of science, said "it wouldn't surprise me if religion had predisposed people to do better science."
Nevertheless, Dawkins believes that religion now has nothing to offer science, and hence there is no point in trying to reconcile the two disciplines.
But can we reconcile the two Richard Dawkinses -- the literary one who has nary a good word to say about religion, and the personal one who admits that religion doesn't have a stranglehold on terror, may inspire ethical behaviour, and may even have contributed to the scientific enterprise?
I must admit I have a difficult time reconciling these disparate figures, but I can say this: Richard Dawkins the person is a lot more open minded than his critics would have you believe. And perhaps that's because the personal Richard Dawkins is a lot more open to contrary evidence, and much more nuanced in his thinking, than the literary one.
Dawkins speaks at the Chan Centre at the University of B.C. at 2 p.m. today.
pmcknight@png.canwest.com
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 | PermalinkComments 251 - 300 of 683 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers252. Comment #173843 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 9:35 am
Al,I don't necessarily insist that there is a very cut and dry line between religiously induced fanaticism and other kinds.
But in context
1) religion is singled out on this site. Almost everyone assumes that it has a special meaning here, including Dawkins and Steve . I am sure Steve used religion in a very narrow sense in our debate above.
2) Words have meanings. As long as you make that distinction in (1), then it would be wrong to attribute the Karnmakazie and the Tamil Tigers to "religion"
Hope I made myself clear. I think you're barking up the wrong tree,.
Other Comments by Bonzai
253. Comment #173851 by Mitchell Gilks on May 1, 2008 at 9:42 am
I think that "religion" is a word ripe with ambiguity, and can easily be construed as anything, but that it playing a word game. I think that Bonzai is correct in saying that on this site, we presuppose a certain rigid definition of religion, as refering to supernatural/metaphysical unjustfied and irrational belief systems.
Otherwise there would never be any reason to use the word "religion" as it can be accurately contrued as any belief system involving dogmas and tenets.
I think it is disengenuous to try to say Bonzai was wrong by attempting to obfuscate and hide behind the ambiguity of the word.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
254. Comment #173853 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 9:43 am
AnnaJust because the incentive isn't supernatural or metaphysical doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I didn't say there was no incentive, Did I?
I actually gave some, all of which are "secular", it therefore is not right to say that the Karmakazis were motivated by "religion" in the sense most people here, including Steve, use the word "religion".
EDIT: It is therefore wrong for Steve to barge in, gun blazing, to accuse me of being apologetic to religion. Yes, I was pissed off.
Other Comments by Bonzai
255. Comment #173857 by annabanana on May 1, 2008 at 9:47 am
Bonzai,I didn't see the post where you clarified before I posted. Sorry.
Other Comments by annabanana
256. Comment #173860 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 9:52 am
Thank you, Mitchell!Other Comments by Bonzai
257. Comment #173907 by alovrin on May 1, 2008 at 10:47 am
Al RawStalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Castro, Lenin, Tito.
Tito? Pardon Double Pardon Please explain why you have included
this name. Is there some other Tito than the now deceased leader of the now non existent Yugoslavia?
And your statement " Capitalism reinforces what is human nature"
Again I beg your pardon. You need to get out a bit more lad.
Other Comments by alovrin
258. Comment #173911 by Mitchell Gilks on May 1, 2008 at 10:49 am
I don't think Steve was wrong necessarily either. I have seen him jump on people more than once that said all religion is irrational or wrong, when he defended Buddhism.
The thing about this though I think, is that buddhism, removed from metaphyical and supernatural beliefs, or the requirement of strict adherence isn't something I would consider a religion at all. Merely a philosophy, or some useful and enlightening wisdom( even contribution to the progress of humanity. Buddhists monks have invented the number system we use, and I learnt a short while ago after beginning to learn to read the Kanji, that they invented the Kanji as well. Which is utilized all over Asia if I'm not mistaken. I think that is amazing). Same with Tao/Daoism. They are often refered to as such, but they do not fit the definition I use for religion. Nor do I think they fit the definitions of very many people that frequent this site.
I would argue that this is a slippery slope, if we allow things like Daoism to be construe as a religion, or any philosophical outlook on life, or core beliefs someone lives by, then it looses all meaning, and might as well be disregarded for more specific words.
Perhaps "disengenuous" was too strong of a word, I think more a lack of appriciationg for how the word is used by the majority of people on the site, and the four horsemen themselves.
Also, clearly we are not the only ones that think this. There are plenty of secular jews, that attend temple, and stict stronge to their heritage, and still adhere to cultural traditions. They though no longer consider themselves religious because they do not adhere to, or believe in the supernatural or metaphysical apsects of Judaism.
So, I think the vast majority of people, not just on this site also use a definition of religion in the sense Bonzai is.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
259. Comment #173921 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 11:08 am
MitchellBuddhists monks have invented the number system we use, and I learnt a short while ago after beginning to learn to read the Kanji, that they invented the Kanji as well. Which is utilized all over Asia if I'm not mistaken. I think that is amazing
Actually, the number system was invented by the ancient Hindus. "Kanjl" is the Japanese way of saying Han (Kan) words(ji), meaning Chinese characters. They were invented by the Chinese long before Buddhism was brought to China.The Japanese adopted some of them into their writing system.
Other Comments by Bonzai
260. Comment #173922 by timtimes on May 1, 2008 at 11:10 am
This fellow might be more apt to reconcile the two Dawkins' if he were brought up as a child to do so from birth. He obviously has little trouble reconciling the many insane biblical dichotomies.Enjoy.
Other Comments by timtimes
261. Comment #173927 by Steve Zara on May 1, 2008 at 11:21 am
Comment #173853 by Bonzai I think I need to de-lurk to answer this.
EDIT: It is therefore wrong for Steve to barge in, gun blazing, to accuse me of being apologetic to religion. Yes, I was pissed off.
No bargeing in. No guns blazing. Just stating what I saw as fact. You have been an apologist for what you call "moderate" religion here for some time. You have been saying that those who claim moderate religion provides cover for fundamentalists are wrong. We had an intense discussion about the motivations of suicide bombers in the past, were you were trying to diminish the role of religion.
You should not be pissed off when someone simply points out what you have been posting for as long as I have read your posts.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
262. Comment #173929 by FightingFalcon on May 1, 2008 at 11:24 am
AllanWFightingFalcon
I understand your impulse to look at other forms of government, my friend; it's natural when you see the mess most democratic contries make of its operation. But don't you think that democracy would work well enough if the vast majority (you'll always have a small percentage of the population that cannot fully participate in the process) of people had better basic education? Most of your, quite accurate, observations would be obviated if this were made a priority.
I know, call me a dreamer.
Far be it from me to criticize a fellow Idealist (since my postings are filled with Idealsm) but I think what you look forward to can never happen. I don't think the uneducated masses will ever have a handle on current events to give them a significant enough voice in the government. I think America in the original sense (e.g. a Republic) works very well but we are quickly becoming a direct democracy, which is - in my opinion - one of the worst forms of government in the world. Everyone points to Ancient Athens and/or Sparta as a successful use of direct democracy but they forget about the thousands of slaves that drove their societies. Slaves/helots took care of the day-to-day work and allowed the citizens to concern themselves with matters of State. Plus, those citizens were expected to be knowledgeable about current events and to participate in government. Our word for idiot comes from the Greek word Idiotes, which means someone who doesn't participate in government.
Meanwhile, our society is filled with people who know more about American Idol than they do about government. Ask an average citizen to define the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims and you'll get blank stares. Better yet, just ask them if Al Qaeda is Sunni or Shia. Our god damned representatives can't even get that one right. But ask the average citizen who won American Idol or what's the latest with Britney Spears and you'll get a full report.
The running of the country should be left to qualified professionals who are experts in their fields. This is why Republics work - you elect people who you think will do a good job. Not someone who will pander to selfish or local interests. Not someone that you can "have a beer with". Or someone who does Crown Royal shots at a local bar. I'm so sick and tired of this "elitist" crap being thrown around at the candidates. You know what? I hope my damn president is elitist! He or she better be smarter than me in every way!
Sorry, getting off on a tangent there. What I mean to say is that important decisions shouldn't be left up to the people. Public opinion polls are quite possibly the worst thing to ever happen to the American Republic. We elect people who are *supposed* to spend their days researching important issues and making informed decisions that will help protect the Constitution. What we get instead are elected officials who begin their re-election campaign the second they win their election. They pander to the ignorant masses in the hopes to get votes. They try to act like "one of the people" until that's what we end up with. A nation run by ignorant morons who are fun to have beers with but have no knowledge about the world or how to properly defend the Constitution.
Yes, I am incredibly cynical toward our government. I don't think that any effort to increase the educational levels of Americans will help. Nor should it. The people vote representatives who are charged with the defense of the Constitution. The country should not be run by the masses.
Other Comments by FightingFalcon
263. Comment #173935 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 11:31 am
alovrin,
Tito, the very same... a communist. He applied for membership in the Russian Communist Party, and was integral in the ascendancy of Communists in Yugoslavia. That was the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia.
Although he resisted Soviet (direct) Influence, he remained a communist.
I get out plenty.
And like I said, show me a socialist country with state ownership that is flourishing and I will eat my hat. All these so called "socialist" countries are capitalist countries with high taxes. And they flourish on the coat-tails of a power house US economy.
Our strong economy helps power the micro-managing nanny states throughout Europe.
And yes, personal incentive is natural, and anything that values it will rest on a natural motivation. Socialism, which robs people of the fruits of their labor destroys people and countries and ruins societies.
Like I said, you will take the full force of history to the face if you attempt to promote true socialism (or communism).
Other Comments by al-rawandi
264. Comment #173938 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 11:33 am
Steveou have been an apologist for what you call "moderate" religion here for some time. You have been saying that those who claim moderate religion provides cover for fundamentalists are wrong.
I stand by that. But
1) It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
2) How am I an "apologist"? I simply state things as I see it, based on my own experience and analysis.
Russell Blackford, for whom I have a lot of respect, happens to agree with me on the moderate enabling fundamentalist issue. Is he an apologist too?
I am not aware that there is a party line that I must toe and that you are appointed to enforce it.Do you fancy yourself a vanguard of the "revolution"?
Sorry Steve, you are an intelligent guy and I am impressed with your vast knowledge and enjoy many of your posts, but sometimes you do seem to take yourself a bit too seriously. You announced that you were going to quit this site and come back not even 24 hours later. I don't really care, you are always welcome as far as I am concerned, but don't be such a drama queen (it is not a homophobic slur from one queen to another)
To call someone an "apologist" is a slur, you should know that.
Other Comments by Bonzai
265. Comment #173939 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 11:33 am
Bonzai,
1) religion is singled out on this site. Almost everyone assumes that it has a special meaning here, including Dawkins and Steve . I am sure Steve used religion in a very narrow sense in our debate above.
Well I don't accept your characterization of Dawkins or Steve, but if it is correct then I diverge from them. Wouldn't be a first.
But I object to the TERM religion. It is simply dogmatic belief. The fact that a god is involved does not make it some super secret special belief. It just involves invisible deities.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
266. Comment #173940 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 11:36 am
But I object to the TERM religion. It is simply dogmatic belief.
Fine, as long as we agree what we are actually talking about.
Other Comments by Bonzai
267. Comment #173945 by Mitchell Gilks on May 1, 2008 at 11:40 am
Actually, the number system was invented by the ancient Hindus. "Kanjl" is the Japanese way of saying Han (Kan) words(ji), meaning Chinese characters. They were invented by the Chinese long before Buddhism was brought to China.The Japanese adopted some of them into their writing system.
I misread this when I was reading about it on wiki:
"The symbols for 1 to 9 in the Hindu-Arabic numeral system evolved from the Brahmi numerals. Buddhist inscriptions from around 300 BC use the symbols which became 1, 4 and 6. One century later, their use of the symbols which became 2, 7 and 9 was recorded."
Damn, I feel like an idiot now I see that I misread, or didn't remember correctly the park about the Kanji in the book I'm reading too:
"These were further transformed and
stylized down through the centuries, so that by the time the Japanese were
introduced to the kanji by Buddhist monks from Korea and started experimenting
with ways to adapt the Chinese writing system to their own language
(about the fourth to seventh centuries of our era), they were already dealing
with far more ideographic and abstract forms."
I was completely wrong on both accounts.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
268. Comment #173949 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 11:42 am
Bonzai,
Haven't you figured it out? I have NO IDEA what I am talking about.
|>:-{o
Other Comments by al-rawandi
269. Comment #173952 by Steve Zara on May 1, 2008 at 11:46 am
You announced that you were going to quit this site
Oh for goodness sake. It is nothing so dramatic as that. I simply have other things I really want to do, and I have been doing them. The flood of self-important IDers has led me to the conclusion that debating here isn't really achieving very much. We are dealing with people one at a time when there are millions out there. I don't know what the answer is, but spending time responding to people like seeker_of_truth here isn't part of it, I feel.
But when someone chats about me on a site, I think it is reasonable for me to respond.
Russel Blackford, for whom I have a lot of respect, happens to agree with me on the moderate enabling fundamentalist issue. Is he an apologist too?
I don't believe so. He posts long and thoughtful articles. He doesn't appear to post things with the certainty you do.
To call someone an "apologist" is a slur, you should know that.
If that is how you want to read it.
I feel pretty strongly that "moderate" religion is a "bad thing", and I find defence of it problematic.
You can call me a self-important drama queen if you like; I have been called far worse. What I really am is tired of having the same conversations again and again with every new theist who turns up here. I want try and find something more constructive to do, or at the very least, something different.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
270. Comment #173954 by alovrin on May 1, 2008 at 11:48 am
You say communist like its a dirty word, thats very.. um.. american of you.power house US economy.
Yeah but for how much longer?
Maybe a seachange is coming and it will be a powerhouse asian economy supporting nanny middle eastern religious states.
And all the white folks are working for a buck a day.
Other Comments by alovrin
271. Comment #173956 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 11:49 am
I don't believe so. He posts long and thoughtful articles. He doesn't appear to post things with the certainty you do.
So it is a snide remark that I post short and thoughtless articles? That is fine. But look up his take on the issue of moderate enabling fundamentalists,.it is identical to mine and he acknowledges it too.
Other Comments by Bonzai
272. Comment #173964 by Diacanu on May 1, 2008 at 11:53 am
Steve Zara-
debating here isn't really achieving very much.
It's teaching me a lot about debate.
Maybe you think you know it all, but even if you do, surely teaching others matters?
Other Comments by Diacanu
273. Comment #173965 by FightingFalcon on May 1, 2008 at 11:54 am
You say communist like its a dirty word, thats very.. um.. american of you.
Show either myself or Al a successful Communist country and both of us will eat our hats.
Communism might actually have Theism beat for being the world's most destructive, evil and deadly "ism" in history. 20 million dead in the Soviet Union, anywhere from 30-60 million in China and millions of others throughout South-East Asia.
Yet people continue to defend it. Simply mind boggling.
Other Comments by FightingFalcon
274. Comment #173971 by Steve Zara on May 1, 2008 at 11:58 am
Comment #173956 by BonzaiIf you are determined to read nastiness into anything I type, there is nothing I can do.
I post short contributions here too, and sometimes without much thought.
I know about Russell's take on the issue of moderates enabling fundamentalists. You have done far more than that. You often argue that influence of religion is minimal in situations where others consider it significant.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
275. Comment #173974 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 11:59 am
Re: SocialismWhat many Americans call "socialism" actually is not even socialism, it is Keynesianism.
Keynesianism arose because of the inherit instability of the market economy, which brought on the Great Depression. Keynes then developed a kinder, gentler form of capitalism which would reign in some of the excesses of raw Capitalism and save it from destroying itself. The Marxists think that it is a sell out, which prolongs the life of a system which needs to die with a "big bang" (in the sense of Richard Morgan?)
To confuse that with socialism or even Marxism, whatever one's take on socialism or Marxism may be, is sheer ignorance,
Other Comments by Bonzai
276. Comment #173977 by Steve Zara on May 1, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Comment #173964 by DiacanuSorry mate, I should have been more specific. I meant achieving much in terms of reducing the influence of ID.
Anyway... I think I have made the point I wanted to. Back to other stuff... good luck with the theists :)
Other Comments by Steve Zara
277. Comment #173981 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 12:04 pm
SteveYou have done far more than that. You often argue that influence of religion is minimal in situations where others consider it significant.
It should be based on the merit of the argument, not whether others consider significant or not. I can take on anyone in those cases.
BY your argument Al should be the biggest apologist as he doesn't even believe that the label "religion" should have any special status at all in those type of discussions.
Other Comments by Bonzai
278. Comment #173984 by Diacanu on May 1, 2008 at 12:07 pm
FightingFalcon-re: post 269
Ah, but the Greeks didn't have the internet.
I too have contempt for the state of our culture, and the state of education, but thanks to the internet, I see it slowly getting better.
I think direct democracy is possible, and workable thanks to the internet.
And I think eletism of the type you've espoused is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You look at the masses as asses, you're not gonna give a flip about their education, so they're going to stay stupid, and this is to the elete's advantage, so they're not going to rock the boat, and then you're stuck with the very government you're cynical about.
Oh, I agree that eletism being a dirty word this election cycle is moronic, sure, but I do think we have to be gearing up for a world where the masses have a say because they have something to say, because everyone's properly educated.
If the internet isn't the tool for that, then nothing is, and I refuse to accept that.
Enlightenment is not a minority privelege.
Not anymore.
Other Comments by Diacanu
279. Comment #173985 by Mitchell Gilks on May 1, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I just looked into Chinese characters a little, to see how different it is. It seems extremely hard, 47 thousand characters...I thought that 3007 was bad enough.
How many do you know Bonzai?
I'm up to 172 Kanji symbols. Though you likely know this, there are 1945 Joyo, or common use Kanji that they teach kids in school in Japan, though I plan on learning all 3007, also all the Kana symbols as well.
I don't think it would be humanly possible to memorize 47 thousand symbols.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
280. Comment #173986 by Geoff on May 1, 2008 at 12:08 pm
249. Comment #173722 by al-rawandi They cannot be better than:
Richard Matheson's I am Legend
John Wynham's The Day of the Triffids
Those are too good, too good I say!
Two of my favourite books! The Omega Man was a good film, too, in contrast with the recent Will Smith effort, which wasn't!
Other Comments by Geoff
281. Comment #173990 by kaiserkriss on May 1, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Falcon:
Show either myself or Al a successful Communist country and both of us will eat our hats.
Unfortunately there is no such thing as a true Communist country, not even Cuba.
Part of the problem, for in order to have true communism to work, you need an all knowing individual, something that is impossible, (except for theists).
I do however concur with your lament about the under educated state of society as a whole, that have no idea what the real issues are. Politics had become a popularity contest, where we are now run by idiots who couldn't even point to Mauritania on a world map. They all pander to the lowest common denominator.
So what IS the solution? Raising the standards for education would be an obvious starting point, but dance class, baseball, hockey, football are all so much more important to parents these days than critical thinking and the sciences.
Even the better educated are so wrapped up in their own little worlds to actually give a damn, until it is almost too late. jcw
Other Comments by kaiserkriss
282. Comment #173991 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 12:12 pm
MitchellHow many do you know Bonzai?
I don't know, I never counted or estimated the number. I can read and write Chinese fluently, I used to write for the school magazine, I speak both Mandarin and Cantonist, though I don't know pinyin. :)
Chinese is my native tongue,
Other Comments by Bonzai
283. Comment #173996 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 12:17 pm
The slogan "moderates enable fundamentalists" makes about as much sense as "Keynesianism covers for communism."Just thought of that, I can use it as a bumper sticker slogan even though I don't have a car (Teratonis would approve)
Other Comments by Bonzai
284. Comment #173999 by Diacanu on May 1, 2008 at 12:19 pm
So Bonzai is a gaysian?I always pictured him as an asexual swede for some reason.
Weird.
Other Comments by Diacanu
285. Comment #174001 by Mitchell Gilks on May 1, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I didn't know that it was your native language, because I only knew you were Chinese, living in Canada, a number of things could be meant by that.
For instance, I find it odd when people that were born in Canada but aren't white are still refered to as being from a country that the majority shares their ethnicity. None of us originated in Canada, not even natives, so I always find it weird.
According to wiki you need to know between 3-4 thousand to read and write Chinese fluently. That's a lot.
I suppose it was a stupid question, it would be like asking me how many words I know.
I never considered that most people probably don't keep track when learning them like I am.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
286. Comment #174010 by AllanW on May 1, 2008 at 12:27 pm
FightingFalconI think you may be too despondent about the state of democracy (in both our countries atm :)) and with good reason. But take a little wider view.
One hundred and fifty years ago you and I would not be able to have this conversation; that has nothing to do with the internet or the medium we use. It has everything to do with the fact that as the children of non-elites (I'm making an assumption about you here, sorry if it's wrong) we would have had better than a fifty-fifty chance of not making it to our teens. We would not have had any formal education. We would not have had basic healthcare (in whatever form but don't get me started on the US's inability to care for three million un-insured poor people in your country grrrr). We would be broken in body through work, disease and lack of prospects by our mid-thirties if we even made it that far.
We have these things now because nobler people than I will ever be fought for these basics for all people. I'm very, very grateful for that and want to continue that trend of progress for the vast majority of humankind. I'd like to think that the potential in me (that has been realised only as a result of the advantages I've received by being born in a country like mine in this time) is present in all people. I'm nothing special but have been able to do things, think thoughts and affect the lives of others in a positive way as a result of these benefits. I think that others can too if we give them the same start in life.
Diacanu said it best above; Enlightenment is not a minority right. It can be available for all. In that set of circumstances (still not optimal I grant you) I think democracy can work.
Yeah, I know; I'm an idealist.
Other Comments by AllanW
287. Comment #174035 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 1:11 pm
alvorin,
Yeah but for how much longer?
Maybe a seachange is coming and it will be a powerhouse asian economy supporting nanny middle eastern religious states.
And all the white folks are working for a buck a day.
Seems unlikely, but it also seems like you hope for this. I am curious as to why, do you live in the US, or some other country.
Self flagellating liberals wail and bleat about the coming end of America. I have plenty of friends here in the US, who sit comfortably in their university offices and wish, with gritted teeth, that the US falls on its face and all those people who made money can taste the agony of defeat. These people are driven by jealousy, if they actually gave two shits and a fuck about poor people they would be working for a NGO in Africa, but instead they sit in Cafes reading Leftist online magazines, on their Macbooks, complaining over lattes about the evils of capitalism with their corderoy clad friends.
These American leftists are much like how I perceive you to be, passive aggressive against a proven system which they cannot conquer with their liberal arts degree. Such threats and prognostications are vacuous without some evidence of the fall of the US system. There is no end in sight I am afraid, a resurgent Chinese economy is all but a farce, it is only due to its privitization of capital and industry that allows their economy to grow.
The challenge stands, show me a successful country with state ownership of industry and resource and I will eat my hat. Until then, volunteer in Africa and prove your concern for the poor. The intellectual concern really gets old.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
288. Comment #174040 by D'Arcy on May 1, 2008 at 1:18 pm
D'Arcy,
State ownership of resources and capital. That is a pretty simple equation. Marx denying that he is for state control does not constitute evidence that his writings did not say this.
If state ownership is the hallmark of socialism then the US military must be one of the biggest "socialist" organisations in the world. And feel free to help yourself to all that "socialist" gold in Fort Knox. Bismark in Germany, whose government passed anti-socialist laws, must also be a "socialist" on account of all the nationalisation of various industries under his rule. I would like to know where Marx advocated nationalisation as the solution to the problems suffered by the working class.
Are you one of the "Well Communism has never really been tried"....
Yes.
If the classless society of socialism / communism is ever to be achieved, it cannot be imposed from above by a vanguard party, as Lenin claimed to have done. The achievement of the classless society must be the conscious work of the majority of the world's working class (most of us), actively seeking to take political action to bring it about.
All the so-called communist countries were and are thoroughly capitalist, and yes, include Cuba. The workers there work for wages on behalf of a privileged class who own the means of living and reap the benefits of the labour of others.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
289. Comment #174041 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Bonzai,
If you dare suggest that I don't know the difference between keynesian economics and socialism I will fly over to wherever you are and slap upside the head. It is so obvious those aren't the same.
I have repeatedly said "State ownership", you continue to dodge because you know, beyond any doubt that socialism is a bankrupt theory. Expounded my wirey haired whackos in San Francisco cafes, shouted by semi-employed "editors" at anti-war rallies, but totally failed when applied to any real society.
Everyone knows this.
Keynesian is the opposite of supply side economics. It suggest that the government knows best how to allocate certain resources, while the opposite side says the free market knows best.
There must be a reconciliation of the two points. Sometimes the government should administer programs, and sometimes it should not. That is a realistic form of capitalism. But look around you and see the countries flourishing as they become free markets or continue to refine free markets (Europe for instance).
Then look at a country becoming socialist before your eyes... Venezuela, run by a man worshipped by Sean Penn, but incapable of tying his perverbial shoes. He will preside over a humanitarian crisis as he drives inflation exponentially higher, courting destruction with his big mouth and small military. Taking function private industries nationalising them and cutting performance and capacity through the hiring of incompeten government fucktards. Expelling Americans with real knowledge and installing people once removed from a pig farm in the jungle. No transition, no plan, simply Bolivarian schizophrenia. Despite its immense resources, Venezuela will be beaten to a pulp by yet another incompetent leftist. He and whoever runs Cuba in a few months can sit about, smoking cigars, and talking about who is more like Che Guevara, while their people starve and attempt to swim to Florida.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
290. Comment #174042 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 1:23 pm
D'Arcy,
If the classless society of socialism / communism is ever to be achieved, it cannot be imposed from above by a vanguard party, as Lenin claimed to have done. The achievement of the classless society must be the conscious work of the majority of the world's working class (most of us), actively seeking to take political action to bring it about.
All the so-called communist countries were and are thoroughly capitalist, and yes, include Cuba. The workers there work for wages on behalf of a privileged class who own the means of living and reap the benefits of the labour of others.
Well good luck with that. Send me a tie-dyed post card from the Eleysian fields of the Socialist Eutopia.
Your class revolution remains laughable. A dictatorship of the proletariat. As long as you get paid in capitalist currency, you are a hypocrite.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
291. Comment #174048 by D'Arcy on May 1, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Your class revolution remains laughable. A dictatorship of the proletariat. As long as you get paid in capitalist currency, you are a hypocrite.
No need to get personal Al. So Cuba represents socialism in your mind? So people in Cuba don't work for wages there and there is no privileged class?
Other Comments by D'Arcy
292. Comment #174051 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 1:46 pm
D'arcy,
To be honest, you are being ridiculous. Seriously.
Oh so now you want to get rid of currency.
So let's see, no currency, not way to move up in society, state ownership. Sounds Orwellian to me. A drab and boring world where personal incentive is absent. You have the workings of.... Well nothing.
1) Your system will never be implemented
2) Your system should never be implemented
3) How do you motivate innovation
4) How do you encourage hard work
People will show up for their 8 hours on the job then go home, even if they suck at their job they still get paid, the same as the people who work hard. There is absolutely zero viability.
Seriously though, are you joking, or do you actually believe this? To be honest, I can't really tell.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
293. Comment #174061 by D'Arcy on May 1, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Al writes:
To be honest, you are being ridiculous. Seriously.
Apart from being a "hypocrite" and "ridiculous", I do actually stand by what I have posted so far on this site.
"Never" is a word to be cautious of, especially as this is a site for rational discussion.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
294. Comment #174062 by Diacanu on May 1, 2008 at 2:01 pm
A world without capital will not be viable until we have nanobuilders/replicators, and neutrino power, and not a moment before.And such a world would take hard work to build, which would require capital right up until that moment.
Of course, the other way is to make people satisfied with much, much, less, even life, and that's what we typically see in communist countries.
Other Comments by Diacanu
295. Comment #174066 by al-rawandi on May 1, 2008 at 2:14 pm
D'Arcy,
As I said. Your model is so obviously not viable as to preclude further discussion until you either show me why it would work to remove all personal incentive or you abandon the position.
I can't spend a day telling someone that Harry Potter isn't real.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
296. Comment #174069 by ChrisChris on May 1, 2008 at 2:21 pm
But he offers that perhaps it's because Marxism itself acts something like a religion in its appeal to a higher power -- the Party, rather than God. And in this Dawkins may be absolutely right, though it reveals that an atheist philosophy can indeed operate as a religion, and therefore offer a logical pathway to evil deeds.Marxism is not an atheist philosophy.
Other Comments by ChrisChris
297. Comment #174071 by phatbat on May 1, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Is there really such a thing as an atheist philosophy?
Is there enough in the definition to make a philosophy out of it?
Other Comments by phatbat
298. Comment #174073 by D'Arcy on May 1, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Al writes:
D'Arcy,
As I said. Your model is so obviously not viable as to preclude further discussion until you either show me why it would work to remove all personal incentive or you abandon the position.
I can't spend a day telling someone that Harry Potter isn't real.
Al, if humanity ever decides that capitalism is not the best of all possible worlds and the peak of human achievement, then it will not not be for me to provide motivation. Evolution has shown that homo sapiens is a very resourceful animal. Individually we are weak, but socially we are strong. No two humans are equal, that is a fact. All human societies, including those pre-capitalism, have managed, to some extent, to look after those less able: young, old, infirm. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.
The motivation for work in a classless society? Survival.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
299. Comment #174078 by Podaar on May 1, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Al got a resounding, "Yes" from me when he thusly spake.These people are driven by jealousy, if they actually gave two shits and a fuck about poor people they would be working for a NGO in Africa, but instead they sit in Cafes reading Leftist online magazines, on their Macbooks, complaining over lattes about the evils of capitalism with their corderoy clad friends.
[American leftists are] passive aggressive against a proven system which they cannot conquer with their liberal arts degree.
Great stuff.
Other Comments by Podaar
300. Comment #174079 by Diacanu on May 1, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Podaar/Al-Rawandi-Meh, it was amusing in construction, but I don't like the broad-brushing.
I think I lean to the left, but I don't have an apocalypse fantasy for capitalism despite my frustrations with its inequities.
Other Comments by Diacanu
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"Pointing to another world will never stop vice among us; shedding light over this world can alone help us."
Walt Whitman
Other Recommended Reading
Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Daniel C. Dennett
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
The Demon-Haunted World
Carl Sagan
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
251. Comment #173837 by annabanana on May 1, 2008 at 9:30 am
It probably isn't unlike religiously motivated martyrdom. There has to be an incentive, otherwise no one would do it. Just because the incentive isn't supernatural or metaphysical doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I think it actually makes more sense that the incentive will be real, i.e. if I blow myself up and take a bunch of people out with me, the world will be a better place and my loved ones will get to live in that better place.
Other Comments by annabanana