Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
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
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
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
Comments 1 - 50 of 679 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #172111 by SilentMike on April 29, 2008 at 8:42 am
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.
Funny thing about books. they don't correct themselves or answer questions. Not quite sure exactly why that is...
Other Comments by SilentMike
3. Comment #172114 by VanYoungman on April 29, 2008 at 8:43 am
All you have to do is listen. The good Doctor has never hidden anything.
Mr. McKnight is definitely a potential convert.
Other Comments by VanYoungman
4. Comment #172117 by bamboospitfire on April 29, 2008 at 8:46 am
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.
Oh dear. It's going to be like that, is it...?
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.
Does suicide bombing have to be religiously motivated? No, of course not - even though most of it is. It is conceivable that even an atheist could be driven to such desperation that he would undertake such an act. But, as anyone who gives the issue a moment's thought should realise, it would not be the person's atheism that drove him to commit that act. Instead, it would be the source of his desperation. Similar reasoning applies to Stalin's execution of priests. Obviously.
The root, strangely enough, is that which first made Dawkins famous -- evolution.
I do hope the intention is not to suggest that evolution should be dismissed because we are products of evolution and we sometimes do evil things. That would be truly moronic...
Lastly, wouldn't someone who had bothered to do some research on the subject know that Professor Dawkins did not choose or condone the "Root of All Evil" title? I can almost smell the indolence...
Other Comments by bamboospitfire
5. Comment #172120 by hallsp on April 29, 2008 at 8:48 am
This is a nice alternative to many of the other characterisations of Richard but it's still lacking.
Many of the points are well made but gloss over the details. Of course, you can reconcile the apparently differing perspectives. Richard never claimed religion was the only source of terror, just a very good one. Religion may indeed inspire ethical behaviour but because it borrows ethical and moral tennets from existing human experience and finally, religion played no part in the genesis of the scientific method, religious people may have but they were only religious because frankly there was no alternative.
Other Comments by hallsp
6. Comment #172130 by jimbob on April 29, 2008 at 8:56 am
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.
Finally somebody gets it!
The problem is not exclusive to religions -- it's a problem of dogmas!
Thus, the penalty for heresy or apostasty from (say) Stalinism is the same as the penalty for questioning radical Islam.
At last!
Other Comments by jimbob
7. Comment #172132 by Monty Burns on April 29, 2008 at 8:57 am
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?
Funny thing about thinking: you have to do it yourself to understand it. The writer seems to equate atheism to "lack of a moral code", which is an all-too-common fallacy. If Stalin had executed only religious people, there might be something in the observation, but he was fairly indiscriminate about it, so there isn't.
Other Comments by Monty Burns
8. Comment #172135 by gcdavis on April 29, 2008 at 8:59 am
Atheists have not only engaged in suicide bombings, but have pioneered the practice -- specifically, the Marxist Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Tamil Tigers are a nationalist, separatist organisation seeking a Tamil homeland in northern Sri Lanka. They have been responsible for atrocities and suicide attacks but I don't think they are overtly Marxist.
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?
Tyrants dispose of those who threaten or confront them, the Russian Orthodox church was a potential threat. He didn't kill for atheism, he killed to maintain his power, these dolts just don't seem to get it!
Other Comments by gcdavis
9. Comment #172143 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 9:04 am
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?
It could. But, and I am interested, is there any evidence that Stalin was intending to "promote atheist", as against supress other power bases?
Also, there is nothing intrinsic to atheism that requires you to promote it. There are no gods or spirits who have a message to be spread in order to save souls.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
10. Comment #172154 by irate_atheist on April 29, 2008 at 9:19 am
I cannot currently be arsed with this thread or the author of the article. Sorry. Other Comments by irate_atheist
11. Comment #172156 by Alkal on April 29, 2008 at 9:21 am
As far as I know, all the communist struggles were class struggles. They were anti-religion because the religious had amassed vast wealth by duping the ordinary folk. It was oppressed against the elite. Of course Stalin and Mao later made huge personality cults of their own- not unlike religions. Had people been atheist pre-the class struggle maybe the inequity would not have existed as much as it did,and the killing avoided.Other Comments by Alkal
12. Comment #172163 by maton100 on April 29, 2008 at 9:34 am
Back on this Stalin crap. Jeez. I wish Stalin stayed with the seminary. Other Comments by maton100
13. Comment #172169 by D'Arcy on April 29, 2008 at 9:42 am
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.
Is Dawkins referring to the Soviet Union, China and other supposedly "Marxist" regimes?
Since when did these countries base themselves upon the "absence of buying and selling", "the abolition of the wages system," "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", "Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains. You have a world to gain", (Religion) "is the sigh of the oppressed. It is the opium of the people"? Never.
These countries were never based upon Marx's or socialist ideas at all. They were and are thoroughly capitalist in nature, if not in jargon. Marx would have been horrified, and probably one of the first against the wall.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
14. Comment #172173 by Dinah on April 29, 2008 at 10:01 am
Did Stalin execute religious figures specifically because they were religious, or because he saw them as representing an alternative kind of power and therefore a threat to his leadership? He did after all suffer from paranoia, and executed many people he imagined were plotting against him.Other Comments by Dinah
15. Comment #172177 by Spinoza on April 29, 2008 at 10:08 am
Simple rebuke:Atheism is NOT Anti-theism.
Other Comments by Spinoza
16. Comment #172179 by FightingFalcon on April 29, 2008 at 10:09 am
Two things:1) No semi-intelligent Atheist would ever argue that a world without religion would lead to an end in violence. I'm sorry but there is absolutely no reason to believe that. What Professor Dawkins has argued (if I can be arrogant enough to argue for him) is that religion leads to an amplification of warfare that few other philosophies can do. The best manifestation of this is suicide bombing but it isn't the only one. Religious warfare is marked by a horror and level of violence that is rarely matched by wars over greed, land, etc. An exception to this is World War II, whose unspeakable atrocities on the Eastern Front were committed out of racial hatred rather than any religious differences.
2) Everyone keeps forgetting the fact that just because religion makes you feel good, it doesn't make it correct. No matter how much good religion brings to the world, that shouldn't stop us from examining if it's actually true or not. If we admit that religion is wrong but necessary to keep the people content, then how is that any different from brain-washing?
I never allow myself to be taken in by the morality arguments. If someone starts arguing about the morality of a Theist vs. an Atheist, I simply ask them for proof of their deity. When they fail to deliver, the argument is over.
Other Comments by FightingFalcon
17. Comment #172181 by Pattern Seeker on April 29, 2008 at 10:13 am
Too bad the fire-breathing 'Dawkins' didn't open-pit barbeque roast the good Sir 'McKnight' in less-than-shining armor. Other Comments by Pattern Seeker
18. Comment #172183 by asupcb on April 29, 2008 at 10:18 am
Stalin and Mao were just two of many tyrants who disposed of anyone who they felt threatened or could threaten their power. Power can go to people's heads quick. I believe Lord Acton said it best, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."Other Comments by asupcb
19. Comment #172185 by MrPickwick on April 29, 2008 at 10:18 am
It's often been said that there are two Richard Dawkinses...This guy is an idiot... but I guess that when you believe in the Trinity (or any equally amazing belief) you are fully prepared to believe in the Dawkins Binitarianism.
But can we reconcile the two Richard Dawkinses...?And here the Tertullian wannabee even attempts to shed some light on the mystery.
Other Comments by MrPickwick
20. Comment #172186 by DavidJGrossman on April 29, 2008 at 10:18 am
"how, after all, could the executions of religious figures not follow logically from the promotion of atheism?"
Wait, what?!?! Is this guy kidding?
So, he interviews Dawkins and then just posts his own thoughts about the interview rather than the interview itself? WTF?!?!?
Other Comments by DavidJGrossman
21. Comment #172187 by riki on April 29, 2008 at 10:20 am
I'm surprised he didn't mention football riots and claim that as an act of godless inspired violence. It's a bit like saying, Stalin wrote a book and instigated acts of violence, therefore authorship leads to violence. You need to look at the real causes and underlying ideology. Religion isn't the only form of delusion, but it's up there with the best. Other Comments by riki
22. Comment #172189 by Dinah on April 29, 2008 at 10:21 am
I suspect Peter McKnight has allowed himself to be over-influenced by the negative comments and interpretations of TGD rather than assessing the book for himself. The religious-minded will continue to condemn the book for daring to question the legitimacy of their claims, but McKnight should have the courage of his own convictions - it does sound as though he's inclined our way rather than theirs.Other Comments by Dinah
23. Comment #172190 by Count von Count on April 29, 2008 at 10:23 am
It seems we might never shake these ignorant questions. Perhaps Sam Harris was right to say that the label "atheist" should be discarded. I've notice when I (quite proudly) tell people I'm an atheist, they often say, "Well, don't you believe in the possibility that there is a god?" At which point I must explain to them about massively low probabilities, "a-fairy-ism," and how the word 'agnostic' doesn't really sum it up. Maybe it would be good antidote for articles like this if one were to say forthrightly that one is actually against dogma in any form, and that this (a posteriori) precludes the probable existence of gods.
Other Comments by Count von Count
24. Comment #172192 by Janus on April 29, 2008 at 10:26 am
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?
Oh, I don't know. How about reading The God Delusion carefully and realizing that the 'literary' Dawkins has never written anything of the kind?
There are indeed two Richard Dawkinses, but not the personal one and the literary one. There's the real Dawkins, and there's Dawkins as his critics would like you to believe he is.
Other Comments by Janus
25. Comment #172194 by Count von Count on April 29, 2008 at 10:28 am
Another note:I think it would be quite effective to harp on the fact that Hitler was also a vegetarian (an "a-carnivore" if you like) and a painter, but no one claims vegetarianism or painting leads to atrocities. I've seen this point casually brought up, but I think it should be used much more often.
Does anyone know similar facts about Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot?
Other Comments by Count von Count
26. Comment #172199 by FoundLink on April 29, 2008 at 10:35 am
From the first couple of sentences this writer misrepresents Prof. Dawkins by stating that he (Dawkins) believes religious instruction of children to be abuse. Anyone who has ever listened to or read the words of the Professor knows that it is the labeling of children that he objects to. The opposite is true about religious instruction as long as it is "comparative".Other Comments by FoundLink
27. Comment #172200 by tybowen on April 29, 2008 at 10:36 am
I've never been able to grasp why people don't associate communist russia with religion. Just because Stalin placed himself as god rather than an imaginary one doesn't mean he didn't use all the same tactics. The soviet regime was a religion in all basic aspects. Belief in a higher power that you must be subservient to that knows best. That faith in the power is the highest virtue. Hostile opposition to opposing view points. Its hard to tell the difference between some of the soviet ceremonies and some religious ceremonies if the party/leader is replaced with God. To me atheism means rational thinking and a lack of faith. That clearly doesn't describe Stalin's view. He got rid of clergy men because they controlled a power base that could threaten his power. No because he really disliked the idea of clergy men. Other Comments by tybowen
28. Comment #172201 by FightingFalcon on April 29, 2008 at 10:37 am
I think it would be quite effective to harp on the fact that Hitler was also a vegetarian (an "a-carnivore" if you like) and a painter, but no one claims vegetarianism or painting leads to atrocities. I've seen this point casually brought up, but I think it should be used much more often.
Many of Hitler's close associates (although not himself) were also homosexual.
Bah - I won't go there.
Other Comments by FightingFalcon
29. Comment #172204 by DamnDirtyApe on April 29, 2008 at 10:39 am
Count Count - you should check out Eddie Izzard. His description of Hitler is top, regarding his status as a vegetarian painter.'I can't get the colours right - ARRRGH I will kill everyone in the world!'
Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe
30. Comment #172207 by Jolly Bloger on April 29, 2008 at 10:42 am
Can I just say I'm a little confused and disappointed that there was no mention (at least no obvious announcement) of Richard's talk at UBC on this site? As a Vancouverite and big Dawkins fan I would have loved to see him today, but sadly I only happened to hear of his talk by chance through the Chan Centre website far too late. In the future, can you guys let us know through this channel when Richard may be coming to our town so we can get in line for tickets, rather than missing out? Other Comments by Jolly Bloger
31. Comment #172211 by gr8hands on April 29, 2008 at 10:49 am
"pioneered the practice" would indicate McKnight is unaware of the existence of suicide bombers prior to the Tamil Tigers. Wow, how ignorant!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,I've never seen evidence in the "scholarship" which I've read on this topic from theists. Most of them start their history of science with the Romans/Greeks -- forgetting centuries of science from other cultures prior to that, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Hardly good scholarship.
How would executing theists "promote" atheism? How would doing something irrational "promote" rationality?
"politics often plays a large role in much strife commonly attributed to religion" -- because religion is almost always political. You have a difficult time keeping religious people from infecting the political process.
Other Comments by gr8hands
32. Comment #172212 by annabanana on April 29, 2008 at 10:50 am
Jolly Bloger,On the main page, there is a column on the left hand side of the page that says "Upcoming Events". Vancouver has been on there for quite some time now.
Other Comments by annabanana
33. Comment #172217 by swordsbane on April 29, 2008 at 10:57 am
"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.
He's not getting it. ANY set of values/morals/beliefs are subject to fanaticism. It happens when what you believe is true is more important than anything else, even other people's lives. Atheism isn't immune, of course, but religion is FAR more prone to that sort of thing, and that is simply a matter of history. I know he's trying to understand Dawkins and all (at least he seems to be trying), but really... How close does he have to be to the answer before it bites him on his backside?
Other Comments by swordsbane
34. Comment #172229 by Count von Count on April 29, 2008 at 11:12 am
DamnDirtyApe -
you should check out Eddie Izzard.
Thanks! I'm already a huge Eddie Izzard fan. Another great comedian along these lines is Bill Hicks. Check out his great "It Seemed So Plausible" video, along with everything else he's done. The man was a genius.
Other Comments by Count von Count
35. Comment #172231 by lbq on April 29, 2008 at 11:16 am
It has already been said before, but I say it again. The statement that "Marxism itself acts something like a religion in its appeal to a higher power -- the Party, rather than God" is false. Pseudo-religions have indeed been created utilising some Marxian terminology, but you cannot find even the slightest adulation of any higher power, either a party or a hypostasised history, in his writings. And mind you, I am one of the probably few people who have read practically ALL of Marx, and ALL of Darwin! Karl Marx was an even more consistent disbeliever than Prof. Dawkins ...But I know of course that it is considered perfectly good form to write at length about Marx without ever having read a line by him. Just the way creationists treat Darwin, in fact.
Other Comments by lbq
36. Comment #172232 by gr8hands on April 29, 2008 at 11:19 am
No, lbq, lots of people have. Just not most journalists or theists.Other Comments by gr8hands
37. Comment #172233 by witchfynder on April 29, 2008 at 11:20 am
That old Stalin chestnut. And does religion have anything to offer science? Dear oh dear.... Like what? A good laugh perhaps? Other Comments by witchfynder
38. Comment #172234 by perkyjay on April 29, 2008 at 11:21 am
Since I live in BC, although too far from Vancouver to drive there comfortably, I was able to listen to RD's interview with Bill Good of cknw in its entirety and thought that Good was very sympathetic to RD's points. As to McKnight's views, I think most commenters are being too harsh on him. He's a journalist first and foremost, not an atheist, but he is ripe for the picking. British Columbia is the most evolved province in Canada, in terms of shucking off ancient belief systems. In my own village of Nakusp there are so many atheists and potential atheists of whom I have become aware in the 8 years since I arrived here from Alberta - the ultimate Bible Belt of Canada - that I am truly amazed. We have to be patient.Other Comments by perkyjay
39. Comment #172235 by Wosret on April 29, 2008 at 11:22 am
Lol, did the guy ever consider that maybe his critics were just full of shit? Doesn't that seem the most parsimonious answer to his Dawkinses paradox?
This guy is just another idiot that clearly doesn't know what "logically follows" even means.
Other Comments by Wosret
40. Comment #172236 by Milton on April 29, 2008 at 11:22 am
Oh no! Not the Stalin/Hitler/Mao argument again. Atheism is totally void of moral content. Not believing in god or other supernatural things does not involve any pointers on how to act at all.Let's take an example. Being white has no moral content either.
Have white people committed evil deeds towards black people because they where black?
Yes.
Was it because they where white?
No.
Why? Because being white does not give you any moral conviction.
Does that mean white people are evil or that being white somehow makes you evil?
No.
Lack of pigmentation does not make you evil. It has no bearing whatsoever on your moral preferences.
I can't believe this one keeps coming up. We need someone to make a convincing (but not too long) statement about this as a flyer or visiting card to be passed around to everyone in the audience of a debate and to the media before answering any questions. This issue must die!
Other Comments by Milton
41. Comment #172239 by Wosret on April 29, 2008 at 11:25 am
It is the same idiotic mistake everytime. People have an inability to tell the difference between causation and correlation. Other Comments by Wosret
42. Comment #172240 by Geoff on April 29, 2008 at 11:26 am
31. Comment #172207 by Jolly Bloger Can I just say I'm a little confused and disappointed that there was no mention (at least no obvious announcement) of Richard's talk at UBC on this site?
Top left corner of this page:
"Upcoming events"
Edit: oops, sorry anna!
(note to self: read all posts before responding!)
Other Comments by Geoff
43. Comment #172241 by perkyjay on April 29, 2008 at 11:28 am
To Jolly Blogger: There has been an announcement on the Home Page of this web-site for at least three weeks, in the top left-hand corner, for both the Chan Centre and yesterday's interview on CKNW.Other Comments by perkyjay
44. Comment #172242 by al-rawandi on April 29, 2008 at 11:29 am
Mitchell,
They need a lesson in pirates and global warming.
Or maybe the tiger repellent pen I have. It keeps away tigers... how, you ask? Not sure says I, but I don't see any tigers hanging out at my office.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
45. Comment #172247 by JimmyL on April 29, 2008 at 11:39 am
When I hear the comment that Stalin or Hitler were atheist I just say, "So?"I'm one of those atheists who will not blame religion for bad deeds because then I feel I would have to blame religion for good deeds. I blame people. Good people pick the good stuff from religion and go with it. Bad people select the bad stuff and go with it. It's people who are the problem. More so, people who are willing to act on faith. Faith is the damaging aspect of religion. The ideas contained in most religious beliefs range from evil to wonderfully kind. The individual person still choses their path.
This is why I question the claim that morality only comes from religion because as I see it the application of religion is inconsistent in its results. The behaviour of Christians truly runs the entire spectrum of human behaviours. Of course the religious claim that the bad people aren't truly religious. They always have an out. Rationalizing is easy when armed with faith.
The religious pointing out bad atheists is just a response to atheists pointing out bad religious people. The common element among these bad people is that they are just people.
Other Comments by JimmyL
46. Comment #172249 by TIKI AL on April 29, 2008 at 11:42 am
DDApe: I had to laugh at that one....or, "These Polish vegetables are too bland, let the invasion begin."
Other Comments by TIKI AL
47. Comment #172253 by MaxD on April 29, 2008 at 11:46 am
Off topic, but I just watched a lego animation of Eddie Izzard's "Death Star Canteena." Its izzard doing the routine but the lego star wars figures doing the skit. Here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv5iEK-IEzw
Enjoy.
Other Comments by MaxD
48. Comment #172265 by Wosret on April 29, 2008 at 12:12 pm
45. Comment #172242 by al-rawandi
Indeed! become a pirate, save the world. RAmen (which by the way is delicious. Oiishii.)
The second one is from Lisa on the simpsons right? The episode with the bear, that prompts all of the anti-bear measures. She ends up selling it to Homer if I remember correctly.
Other Comments by Wosret
49. Comment #172269 by textnotspeech on April 29, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Religion does not have monopoly on ignorance, it has the majority market share. I feel this interview is complimentary in tone on the surface but will mainly serve to paint Dawkins as a fundamentalist flip-flopper who will say anything to promote his cause. The problem is that arguing the value of religion is not the same as arguing the validity of it's claims. Whether or not belief in something causes good or bad actions, does not prove it's truth.Other Comments by textnotspeech
50. Comment #172286 by Geodesic17 on April 29, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I had a thought, but it escapes me at the moment. As far as believers wanting to understand Atheism, the God Delusion probably isn't a good introductory for Christians. I recommend Bart Ehrman for people that are just starting out. He claims agnosticism though.Other Comments by Geodesic17
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #172105 by liddlefeesh on April 29, 2008 at 8:38 am
"how, after all, could the executions of religious figures not follow logically from the promotion of atheism?"
What I don't understand is how the promotion of a-fairy-ism does not equally promote the execution of rival religious leaders.
What utter nonsense.
Other Comments by liddlefeesh