RICHARD DAWKINS' "The ROOT OF ALL EVIL"

[irir123]

Prof Richard Dawkins tackles the epidemic of irrational, superstitious thinking which is blotting the light of logic and evidence. After garnering tips on psychics' entirely earthly trade secrets from the illusionist Derren Brown, Dawkins attends a seance and confronts the medium. Time and again, the interviewees appeal to personal revelation or second-hand anecdote to justify their belief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyQ57X3YhH4&feature=related

[kid-glove]

Looking back, I think it's a feeble attempt compared to his richly detailed books. But it's still considered a supplement to his other works. There is another short little conversation with Dawkins as a spin-off of BBC Brief History of Disbelief, called 'Atheism Tapes'.

[equanimus]

What do you guys think about this piece (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/mar/15/society) by John Gray?

[complicateur]

Great article equanimus. Thanks for sharing. It seems the debate terms need to be rephrased.

[kid-glove]

Equa,

Thanks for positing it. I follow Guardian for contemporary topics and debates. I read this piece and cringed when it fist came out. Here's a comment in Guardian blog which perfectly encapsulates what I make of this drivel.


Of the many silly responses to "the new atheists", this is one of the silliest. Gray clearly hasn't bothered to read the atheist books he criticises, because he makes one obviously false claim after another about them. He also clearly doesn't understand biology, or even science in general, or for that matter logic.

For example, after making the false, and cringe-inducing, claim that Dawkins "recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage", - thus demonstrating not only that Gray hasn't read the God Delusion but also that his understanding of the theory of natural selection doesn't go beyond the comic-book level - Gray then hilariously immediately goes on to contradict this by (finally) correctly saying that Dawkins believes that religion is a memetic virus, which actually is harmful to the individual who contracts it.

If Gray will trouble himself to read the relevant passage of "The God Delusion", he will find that Dawkins's view is actually that religion is an accidental by-product of other traits which do confer benefit to individuals. Natural selection most assuredly does not teach that every ubiquitous trait must confer "evolutionary advantage", as Gray apparently believes.

Gray also says that the theory of memes is not a proper theory; in fact, he says, it is as unscientific as intelligent design. Gray thus demonstrates that his ignorance extends beyond biology to science in general. Reasonable people can disagree regarding the plausibility and usefulness of the theory of memes, but it is a theory: it provides an explanation for natural events in natural terms, and while it may be difficult to test, it is certainly testable in principle. To compare this to intelligent design, which simply maintains that whatever came about in a way we can't understand must have been the work of God, shows a lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is. Intelligent design is not just untestable in practice but in principle, since it deliberately posits something which is in principle outside any possible experience. Therefore ID is not a theory, but memetics most assuredly is.

Gray also falsely says that all of "the new atheists" believe that "over the long run, the advance of science will drive religion to the margins of human life", and then compounds his error by citing Christopher Hitchens as a prominent proponent of this belief. Actually, not only is it not the case that all "new atheists" believe this, but Hitchens is a perfect example of someone who emphatically believes the contrary, having said not just in "God is not Great" but also in many other fora that he is convinced that religion will never be eradicated.

And of course, like all good religious apologists, Gray can be counted on to trot out the "Hitler and Stalin were atheists, so that proves atheism is evil" meme. (Yes, I said meme.) For the umpteenth time, Hitler was a Roman Catholic, and his partners in crime were a motley assortment of Catholics and PAGANS, not atheists. Hitler regularly invoked not just God but specifically Jesus in his speeches and had the slogan "Gott mit uns" put on the belts of his soldiers. Hitler never left the Church, nor did the Church consider him in any way an apostate; in fact, it ordered that his birthday be celebrated as a public holiday. And Stalin's communist regime was based on a God-emperor religion; the fact that Stalin didn't call it a religion doesn't change its essential characteristics.

I could go on and on, but one would have to write an essay as long as Gray's to list all of his errors. Clearly, essays such as Gray's lack any honest intellectual purpose; they are merely intended as thumb-sucking reassurance for religious folk loath to rouse themselves from their dogmatic slumbers.

[equanimus]

I'm not sure about Gray, but I've to admit that I've not read The God Delusion (or any of the books written by one of the New Atheists)! But I don't think Gray is being an apologist for religion here.

[kid-glove]

While no 'apologist' himself, he takes potshots, but the argument reeks of cynicism, and his views on Dawkins book is wrong(ly interpreted) at many levels. He deceives to be middle-ground, but if you read the books, and double check the facts, you will be convinced of his intentions. With this piece, he is the one guilty of partaking in 'high ground'. Sheer hypocrisy!!

[irir123]

This is equally good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_1Gpt6dKFo&feature=related

"In this two-part documentary, Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins examines how religious faith is gaining ground in the face of rational, scientific truth. The program takes you to some of the world's religious hot-spots, both in America and the Middle East. Dawkins meets with religious leaders and their followers, as well as scientists and sceptics to examine the power of religion. Interviews with former Pastor Ted Haggard, the novelist Ian McEwan, the former Bishop of Oxford, and others offer valuable insights into the global impact and consequences of faith in the 21st century.

Along with his million-copy bestseller The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins' Root of All Evil? has helped inspire people of reason worldwide to say "Enough is enough!" Our modern world is the product of a long march from ignorance and fear to the Enlightenment and beyond, always guided by the power of science and reason. To now abandon our endeavour toward progress and knowledge for faith and superstition puts humanity in peril. "

[kannannn]

Looking back, I think it's a feeble attempt compared to his richly detailed books. But it's still considered a supplement to his other works.

Agree. The programs do no justice to what he wants to convey, either due to time or content constraint. I too prefer his books and articles.

Apropos Gray, I can breakdown his arguments into three essential parts (Dawkins is mentioned where appropriate):

1. It is in human nature to be religious and it doesn't make sense for New Atheists to try to wipe out religion ( it is never going to go away)

2. The arguments atheists make against religion are themselves based on themes already covered by religions.

3. The argument of atheists that religion is the cause of human mistreatment is wrong. It is not religion that causes human misery. It is humans themselves. So, atheist are no atheist, humans are going to continue to be killed.

As for 1, I think Gray is largely right. In fact, as Gray points out, Dawkins says much the same in 'God Delusion' and clearly lays down the reasons this is so from a evolutionary point of view (the theory of dualism coupled with the intentional stance - more on this if anyone's interested). But Gray's understanding of Dawkins stops right there. Dawkins himself agrees in 'God Delusion' that meme theory is not yet universally accepted. Meme theory is not necessarily science, but it attempts to explain social phenomena through evolutionary concepts. It is still in early stages and trying to equate it with ID, which is nothing but a euphemism for creationism smacks of ignorance. As for Dawkins' suggestions to stem the passing down of religious memes, I don't see what the problem is. When did promoting the ability to reason become to be equated to religious indoctrination.

Wrt 2, religion has been around for thousands of years. So, yes, it has covered all social themes, but not necessarily in a positive light. So, it is not what the themes are but how they are covered. Equating freewill as espoused by atheists with freewill as tackled in Bible is taking it too far. Gray is seeing continuity where there are none.

3. May be, but that is the point many New Atheists make. That any belief without reason is dangerous. The massacres committed by so-called atheists does not stem from atheism, but from tyranny and a desire to rule without opposition. That they were atheists was just incidental. Gray also argues that many religious beliefs are based on typically secular revolutionary views (I recommend Jason Burke's 'Al-Queda' for a more insightful comparison between the two phenomena). Yes, he is right, but only partially. Religious extremists may be fighting for justice or may be fighting for just their religion. The former is common to all oppressed people, from Palestine to South America. That doesn't prove anything about atheism. The latter is what New Atheists are concerned about. As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.

I understand and agree with some of Gray's arguments. But, I think he is trying to paint every idea and thought process with the same cynical brush, without much evidence to back him up.

[kid-glove]

Brilliant dissection of the core points of the article. Could never have put it as succinctly.

"trying to paint every idea and thought process with the same cynical brush, without much evidence to back him up."
-That's exactly why that article is irritating.


Dawkins says much the same in 'God Delusion' and clearly lays down the reasons this is so from a evolutionary point of view (the theory of dualism coupled with the intentional stance - more on this if anyone's interested)
- I specifically hold this chapter Roots of religion, quite high. Enriching. It was lucidly written with relevant examples and interesting references. I'd credit it for realizing the inherent dualistic thought process (tentative at occasions, but also, in context of art & aesthetics), and in time I have become more of a deadpan Monist. Still, like Dawkins, I'm equally capable of relishing Wodehouse's "Laughing Gas".


Dawkins himself agrees in 'God Delusion' that meme theory is not yet universally accepted. Meme theory is not necessarily science, but it attempts to explain social phenomena through evolutionary concepts. It is still in early stages and trying to equate it with ID, which is nothing but a euphemism for creationism smacks of ignorance. As for Dawkins' suggestions to stem the passing down of religious memes, I don't see what the problem is. When did promoting the ability to reason become to be equated to religious indoctrination
:exactly:
-Dawkins writes in 'Selfish Genes and Selfish Memes',
"I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all toll numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case." (verbatim)
This is particularly true in Gray's case.

Looking to read more on 'memes', 'intentional stance', and nuances of Gould-Dennett debate.

Gray got it woefully wrong about Dawkins being 'convinced' that education in families and schools would 'stop' religion. And that it was un-Darwinian, but fundamentalist view.
Au contraire,

"If neuroscientists find a 'god centre' in the brain, Darwinian scientists like me will still want to understand the natural selection pressure that favoured it. Why did those of our ancestors who had a genetic tendency to grow a god centre survive to have more grandchildren than rivals who didn't? The Darwinian ultimate question is not a better question, not a more profound question, not a more scientific question than the neurological proximate question. But it is the one I am talking about here."
....
(illustrates the self-immolation behavior of moths..accident vs suicide..debate itself being a misfiring by-product of a normally useful compass - that they have nervous systems that steer by maintaining a fixed angle to light rays, a tactic that we notice only where it goes wrong.) he applies similar by-product inference and deduction of religious behaviour in humans. he goes like..



"People not only hold these beliefs with passionate certitude, but devote time and resources to costly activities that flow from holding them. They die for them, or kill for them. We marvel at
this, just as we marvelled at the 'self-immolation behaviour' of the moths. Baffled, we ask why. But my point is that we may be asking the wrong question. The religious behaviour may be a misfiring, an unfortunate by-product of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful. On this view, the propensity that was naturally selected in our ancestors was not religion per se; it had some other benefit, and it only incidentally manifests itself as religious behaviour. We shall understand religious behaviour only after we have renamed it."

"My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any other species, we survive by the accumulated experience of previous generations, and that experience needs to be passed on to children for their protection and well-being. Theoretically, children might learn from personal experience not to go too near a cliff edge, not to eat untried red berries, not to swim in crocodile-infested waters. But, to say the least, there will be a selective advantage to child brains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey the tribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone. Trust your elders without question. This is a generally valuable rule for a child. But, as with the moths, it can go wrong. "

Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses. For excellent reasons related to Darwinian survival, child brains need to trust parents, and elders whom parents tell them to trust. An automatic consequence is that the truster has no way of distinguishing good advice from bad. The child cannot know that 'Don't paddle in the crocodile-infested Limpopo' is good advice but 'You must sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon, otherwise the rains will fail' is at best a waste of time and goats. Both admonitions sound equally trustworthy. Both come from a respected source and are delivered with a solemn earnestness that commands respect and demands obedience. The same goes for propositions about the world, about the cosmos, about morality and about human nature. And, very likely, when the child grows up and has children of her own, she will naturally pass the whole lot on to her own children - nonsense as well as sense - using the same infectious gravitas of manner.

Gray puts it like, "Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory"

He could be excused if he got that 'impression' without indulging much into Dawkins. :roll: Wonder if he ever got to read the book in full.


As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.
QFT.:thumbsup:

[equanimus]

While no 'apologist' himself, he takes potshots, but the argument reeks of cynicism
kid-glove,
True, but I don't think that's reason enough to not take him seriously. It seems he describes himself (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/jul/07/philosophy.politics) as "a perverse thinker who loves finding the worm in somebody's prize rose." (I stumbled upon these pieces from a post on this blog (http://themaanga.com/2008/03/16/dystopia/).) And by the way, I must admit I'm a cold cynic myself, but I do see the difference between saying something useful and merely stating thet "everything sucks." :)

and his views on Dawkins book is wrong(ly interpreted) at many levels. He deceives to be middle-ground, but if you read the books, and double check the facts, you will be convinced of his intentions. With this piece, he is the one guilty of partaking in 'high ground'. Sheer hypocrisy!!
I see where you're coming from. I've often heard people say that Dawkins' books are not a fraction as "extremist" as they are thought to be. Yet to read any of them. (Lazy reader, you see.) I recall an interview (BBC?) in which I liked the way he conceded that he's being an apologist for atheism without much fuss.

But in the larger context (looking beyond whether he interprets Dawkins or the New Atheists right on some counts), I think Gray's essay is excellent and very useful.

[equanimus]

Gray puts it like, "Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory"

He could be excused if he got that 'impression' without indulging much into Dawkins. :roll: Wonder if he ever got to read the book in full.
Again, I've not read the book, but based on the passages you've quoted, I'm not sure I understand what Gray got wrong. Some explanation would help!


As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.
QFT.:thumbsup:
Well, I guess that would pass as a good wisecrack, but how true is it really? I'd be more willing to concede this point if it's about any kind of indoctrination. And who's not indoctrinated?! For instance, it could be argued that the thousands of commenters in the YouTube video are indoctrinated by Dawkins even if that's not his intention. (As I type this, I'm reminded of the ever-so-useful line from The Life of Brian -- "How shall we **** off, O Lord?") Of course, not that that makes them "bad," but the point is to distinguish between any kind of indoctrination and religion specifically.

[equanimus]

As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.
QFT.:thumbsup:
Not to mention that this is exactly the kind of Utopian promise that Gray mocks at!

[kid-glove]

Statement1: Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out.

No, Dawkins was stating his own inference, relevant to Darwinian survival. He was inferring why it had been propagated. That it was propagated along with various other (vital) qualities that was needed for survival.
He also says, "The religious behaviour may be a misfiring, an unfortunate by-product of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful. On this view, the propensity that was naturally selected in our ancestors was not religion per se; it had some benefit at the time, and it only incidentally manifests itself as religious behavior." So, some of the religious qualities (as we know now) are knowingly or unknowingly propagated, some for the right benefit, slowly but surely it had been manifested into what we known infer as 'religion'.

Dawkins suggests from early man to stone aged tribes to whatever social system until now, with strict adherence to elderly generation, had carried 'religious behavior' for generations. He was neither suggesting/speculating the scenario Gray was hitting at. While it's a fanciful speculation, it misses the point.

Statement2: This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory

It is remotely 'fundamentalist'. It's wonderful Gray abides by his cynical agenda. But here, it's beyond logic - farcical journalism.

[kid-glove]

Regarding that Steven Weinberg quote, it is very much relevant. It was said in context of religion, but could be extended to any such indoctrinations that causes damage. But Religion has become a reason as well as an excuse to take up evil, it's so easy to look past it, but it should not be. It was used in a good context. As seen below,

3. The argument of atheists that religion is the cause of human mistreatment is wrong. It is not religion that causes human misery. It is humans themselves. So, atheist or no atheist, humans are going to continue to be killed. "

is the point many New Atheists make. That any belief without reason is dangerous. The massacres committed by so-called atheists does not stem from atheism, but from tyranny and a desire to rule without opposition. That they were atheists was just incidental. Gray also argues that many religious beliefs are based on typically secular revolutionary views (I recommend Jason Burke's 'Al-Queda' for a more insightful comparison between the two phenomena). Yes, he is right, but only partially. Religious extremists may be fighting for justice or may be fighting for just their religion. The former is common to all oppressed people, from Palestine to South America. That doesn't prove anything about atheism. The latter is what New Atheists are concerned about. As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.

[kid-glove]

As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.
QFT.:thumbsup:
Not to mention that this is exactly the kind of Utopian promise that Gray mocks at!

Firstly, What kind of a Utopian promise? "With or without religion", there will be evil things. But that Religion has become a reason or an excuse to take up evil is what we are talking about.

Secondly, I'm much more interested in South park's "Go God Go" than whatever cynicism Gray has conjured in that essay. At least it laughs/mocks in an earnest way. Gray takes himself seriously. I have no problem with that, but he has failed with his examples and references, the least I'd expect is to find the right "worms" in somebody's prize rose (in his own figurative words). What I find is blind assertions, and that really irritates me. That is all.

[kid-glove]

There is an agenda among atheist-doubters to paint a wrong picture of 'atheism' (as broadly used in mainstream thinking) as some form of 'indoctrination' in itself, and a hypocritical 'high ground' stance, and that it is spreading a false 'Utopian promise' (in case of Gray).

I loved how South Park(in Go God Go) mocks at fictional 'Utopian promise', the scenario goes like this, three atheist groups fight over "Great Question", and turn 'irrational' to fight for their 'truth'. :lol:

But, such categorizations are wrong. Atheism is about truth. It is open for reasonable debate with logic and reasoning. Whether this debate (and hunger for truth) would soon metamorphose into irrational or unreasonable behavior (as in that SP episode ) of other forms, is an amusing idea. But in my opinion, as soon as one touches irrationality, they're no atheists anymore. It is about finding rational solutions in any given context.

[kannannn]

As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.
QFT.:thumbsup:
Well, I guess that would pass as a good wisecrack, but how true is it really? I'd be more willing to concede this point if it's about any kind of indoctrination. And who's not indoctrinated?! For instance, it could be argued that the thousands of commenters in the YouTube video are indoctrinated by Dawkins even if that's not his intention. (As I type this, I'm reminded of the ever-so-useful line from The Life of Brian -- "How shall we **** off, O Lord?") Of course, not that that makes them "bad," but the point is to distinguish between any kind of indoctrination and religion specifically.

Equa, I understand the concerns on the possibility of 'Militant Atheism', but as Thilak put it, it is a possibility that has to be overcome through reasoning. Perhaps, the human tendency to fall for personality cults is itself a meme. Perhaps, through education and promotion of enquiry that meme can as well be stemmed. The point is, religion does not, for obvious reasons encourage such enquiry and reasoning, which ultimately drives some of its followers to commit acts they wouldn't as normal, sane humans.


But, such categorizations are wrong. Atheism is about truth. It is open for reasonable debate with logic and reasoning. Whether this debate (and hunger for truth) would soon metamorphose into irrational or unreasonable behavior (as in that SP episode ) of other forms, is an amusing idea. But in my opinion, as soon as one touches irrationality, they're no atheists anymore. It is about finding rational solutions in any given context.
:D

[kid-glove]

the human tendency to fall for personality cults is itself a meme. Perhaps, through education and promotion of enquiry that meme can as well be stemmed. The point is, religion does not, for obvious reasons encourage such enquiry and reasoning, which ultimately drives some of its followers to commit acts they wouldn't as normal, sane humans.

:exactly:
Psychological inclination to superstition(tested positive for even animals & birds), and 'false promises', is something to be worked on as well.

[anbu_kathir]

As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.


The Non-eastern religions clearly have it wrong in thinking that religion is about good and bad. That is simply not the point of it at all. Mythology and ritual (the prime components of religion) are not meant to differentiate the world into good and bad, right/wrong etc etc.. It is meant to 'point at' that 'mystery' which lies beyond all concepts (which are automatically dual), all reasoning and logic. Science can never do that because in science, concepts are truth. In religion, concepts are not truth. A concept can at most be a pointer to Truth, and not anything else.

This prof. from the Univ of Virginia offers a course on consciousness which deals with the relationship of Quantum physics to Consciousness. The most relevant part to this discussion would be Chapter 1, I believe.

http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

One could also have a look at this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Myth
This is one of my favourite collections of videos on mythology and their implications to human life. The book is available in stores in India,but not the videos, I think. You can get them for free (illegally of course) from here.
http://insanefilms.com/?cat=747

In other words, religions deal with metaphors, not Reality. It is therefore more closer to art than science. For this reason, religion can never be substituted by science, because it would mean the same thing to say that science can substitute art, which is impossible. The precise problems lie not in Religion itself, but only in taking the metaphors that religion offers to be literal reality.



The point is, religion does not, for obvious reasons encourage such enquiry and reasoning, which ultimately drives some of its followers to commit acts they wouldn't as normal, sane humans.


One merely has to look into the philosophical, psychological traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism to know about enquiry, reasoning related to the most basic themes of all Life. Even the Gnostic traditions of Christianity, the Sufi traditions of Islam have such insights. It is in good reason that the psychologists and the psycho-analysts of today are incorporating these insights from the Non-dualistic interpretations of religions into their routines.

Love and Light.

[equanimus]

Dawkins suggests from early man to stone aged tribes to whatever social system until now, with strict adherence to elderly generation, had carried 'religious behavior' for generations. He was neither suggesting/speculating the scenario Gray was hitting at. While it's a fanciful speculation, it misses the point.
Thilak, I don't see where he misses the point. Based on the passages you've quoted, clearly Dawkins is suggesting that religion is more a baggage that we're carrying only because it's been propagated along with other vital qualities for survival and that it's of those things that's not "useful" anymore?

Firstly, What kind of a Utopian promise? "With or without religion", there will be evil things. But that Religion has become a reason or an excuse to take up evil is what we are talking about.
On the contrary, I don't see what's not Utopian about this deal! Merely holding that "there will be evil" doesn't make the proposal any less Utopian. In fact, it's simplistic to understand Utopia as a "no evil" scenario. For Utopia to exist as a notion, there has to be dystopia on the other side. That statement reflects this duality precisely by invoking the "good-bad" divide. To turn the statement on its head, for the "good" to stay "good," religion is a hindrance! Isn't this something that could easily pass for some kind of fundamentalist theology? (Incidentally this is why I find that line an interesting wisecrack.)

[podalangai]

As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
And this is utter rubbish. So many of the worst horrors of the 20th century had nothing to do with religion. The horrors of the two World Wars, the Holocaust, Stalinism, the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, the Holodomor, Black July in Sri Lanka, Darfur - all these were perpetrated in the name of secular ideologies, and not religion.

The easiest way to get good people to do evil things is to make them believe they are not morally responsible for their actions. Saying you're doing what you're doing for God is one way of doing that, but it works just as well to say you're doing it for Comrade Stalin, or "Dem deutschen Volke", or England, or your tribe, or your language. To focus exclusively on religion ignores history, and hinders our ability to investigate the causes of the madnesses that periodically grip humanity.


The point is, religion does not, for obvious reasons encourage such enquiry and reasoning, which ultimately drives some of its followers to commit acts they wouldn't as normal, sane humans.
Nor does any ideology that seeks to propagate itself ideologically, rather than rationally. And every ideology has done this - including atheist ideologies (such as the Khmer Rouge, which sought to eradicate religion by force). Dawkins says that when an atheist ideology uses means other than reason, it isn't the fault of atheism. Fine. But it does show that it isn't belief in God that makes an ideology susceptible to being used for evil. This isn't unique to religion - it's a lot more pervasive than that.

[kid-glove]

Dawkins is suggesting that religion is more a baggage that we're carrying only because it's been propagated along with other vital qualities for survival and that it's of those things that's not "useful" anymore?

Yes, It has turned "harmful" is the point. Besides, Dawkins never visualized an 'imaginary' scenario(that Gray proposes) of religious behavior not being propagated if had been stopped in school and families. In stead Dawkins thinks of it a 'by-product' that might have been beneficial at the time, and that has been passed-over for centuries. And not all by-products are "useful". That these by-products might be even unknowingly propagated, and for better intentions. Also Dawkins clearly suggests that it might have been distorted through this propagation.

And laughably enough, Gray concedes such a view(which is his own twisted figment, not Dawkins) is fundamentalist. That's something of a vicious attack (rubbish at it turns out), if anything, on a logical inference from Darwinian survival.


To turn the statement on its head, for the "good" to stay "good," religion is a hindrance!

Religion is definitely *one* of the hindrance. It is one of the reasons that people take up to, and in large groups. Even it weren't just "evil" things, it is dangerous because it defies logic and in many ways, supports irrationality and superstition.


Isn't this something that could easily pass for some kind of fundamentalist theology?
What kind? Unlike 'fundamentalism' as we know now, there are no imaginary sacred texts to strictly abide by, to do irrational things. :lol:

[kid-glove]

The easiest way to get good people to do evil things is to make them believe they are not morally responsible for their actions. Saying you're doing what you're doing for God is one way of doing that, but it works just as well to say you're doing it for Comrade Stalin, or "Dem deutschen Volke", or England, or your tribe, or your language.

Think that's the point Kannannn was making in,

3. The argument of atheists that religion is the cause of human mistreatment is wrong. It is not religion that causes human misery. It is humans themselves. So, atheist or no atheist, humans are going to continue to be killed. "

is the point many New Atheists make. That any belief without reason is dangerous. The massacres committed by so-called atheists does not stem from atheism, but from tyranny and a desire to rule without opposition. That they were atheists was just incidental. Gray also argues that many religious beliefs are based on typically secular revolutionary views (I recommend Jason Burke's 'Al-Queda' for a more insightful comparison between the two phenomena). Yes, he is right, but only partially. Religious extremists may be fighting for justice or may be fighting for just their religion. The former is common to all oppressed people, from Palestine to South America. That doesn't prove anything about atheism. The latter is what New Atheists are concerned about. As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture

I don't think Weinberg, Kannannn, and kid-glove are naive enough to believe it's *only* religion, and ignore history, and other details. It's a quote, and it has a valid point to make. While it should have said, "for good people to do evil things, that takes religion among other factors "(or any such additions), this quote was dealing with dangers of religion.

[equanimus]

By the way, Kannan, I am holding on responding to the questions you've raised because of the backlog (and also because the discussion is going in many different directions!), but for now, just a couple of quick responses that I'd started typing down yesterday. Meme theory and suchlike sound like Greek and Latin to me, so pardon me for keeping away from them.

3. May be, but that is the point many New Atheists make. That any belief without reason is dangerous.
This is actually a sweeping statement and clearly relies more on a kind of faith than reason. What constitutes the "danger" that you're alluding to? Why exactly is any belief without reason "dangerous?" Or, to turn the tables, how exactly is any belief with reason good or even less "dangerous?" Note that I'm NOT arguing that belief with reason is dangerous, but merely questioning the opposite.

The massacres committed by so-called atheists does not stem from atheism, but from tyranny and a desire to rule without opposition. That they were atheists was just incidental.
I'm sure you'd have heard this before, but what's your response to the argument that it's also incidental that those who committed the rest of the massacres the world has seen were theists? It is indeed fallacious to point towards the respective belief systems just because there was one to fall back on? And after all, isn't that exactly what the massacrers wanted everyone to believe?!

[podalangai]

I don't think Weinberg, Kannannn, and kid-glove are naive enough to believe it's *only* religion, and ignore history, and other details.

Dawkins, however, seemingly is.


It's a quote, and it has a valid point to make. While it should have said, "for good people to do evil things, that takes religion among other factors "(or any such additions), this quote was dealing with dangers of religion.

That's still not a valid point, no more than if I were to say, "for good people to do evil things, it takes communism." Neither Communism nor religion (nor, for that matter, capitalism, nor nationalism) are necessary or even sufficient conditions for getting good people to do evil things.

[equanimus]

Equa, I understand the concerns on the possibility of 'Militant Atheism', but as Thilak put it, it is a possibility that has to be overcome through reasoning.
Kannan,
Just to be clear on what we're debating, I'm not really concerned about the possibility of "militant atheism." :) In fact, the very manner in which you put this assumes that any kind of irrational belief needs to be necessarily overcome by pure rational reasoning and it's only the how that remains a mystery or, at any rate, unresolved. (I can't help but once again point to the religion parallel here!) And I don't agree with that.

[kid-glove]

Dawkins, however, seemingly is.
He was against the title, and it seems the producers pushed it forward with a interrogative, "The Root of ALL Evil?"

He couldn't stuff a lot in the documentary, but if you consider his oeuvre as such, he has stated relevant examples on various cases from human history, and how social inequalities/oppression stemming from religion eventually led to dehumanization. The meme theory provides a great explanation for "behavioral" patterns. And how religion is a dangerous "meme".

Strawman argument is to tie the failed instances of social/political models, to blind 'indoctrination' like Religious fundamentalism. Why such social/political system has failed, the fact that they are ideologically 'secular' ? or because of a "failed direction" taken up by rebel leaders and their propaganda? this again comes under blind idolatry, a 'meme' as noted by Kannannn.

[kid-glove]

Some of the arguments are dealt by Dawkins himself. He has addressed topics like "What about Hitler and Stalin? Weren't they atheists?", "What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?", "The roots of morality: why are we good?" are relevant and offers an interesting read, even if one is unwilling to discern from it. I don't have access to the material, but when I do, I will post it here, and that will help the debate evolve further.

[podalangai]

He was against the title, and it seems the producers pushed it forward with a interrogative, "The Root of ALL Evil?"

He couldn't stuff a lot in the documentary, but if you consider his oeuvre as such, he has stated relevant examples on various cases from human history, and how social inequalities/oppression stemming from religion eventually led to dehumanization.

Yes, and his attempts to trace the roots of Stalinism and Nazism to mediaeval Christianity shows an appalling ignorance of fairly basic mediaeval European history, to say nothing of the scholarly work on things like the rise of the state, the roots and effects of German historicism and so on. None of these have anything much to do with religion, no matter what Dawkins says. It's a pretty neat trick to say all of these have their origins in a certain meme that originated in religion, but it's also pretty false. There're memes at work all right, but they're not rooted in religion.



Strawman argument is to tie the failed instances of social/political models, to blind 'indoctrination' like Religious fundamentalism.

My point, which you're not really engaging with, is that the problem is what you call "indoctrination", not religion - and that there isn't a necessary relationship between religion and "indoctrination", any more than there is between communism and "indoctrination".

[kid-glove]

Yes, and his attempts to trace the roots of Stalinism and Nazism to mediaeval Christianity shows an appalling ignorance of fairly basic mediaeval European history, to say nothing of the scholarly work on things like the rise of the state, the roots and effects of German historicism and so on. None of these have anything much to do with religion, no matter what Dawkins says. It's a pretty neat trick to say all of these have their origins in a certain meme that originated in religion, but it's also pretty false.

Well he makes a pretty convincing case with neat references. I'm willing to hear your take, with references of scholarly works on rise of state, the roots, and effects of German historicism. Or better yet, point me to books. I'm willing to listen, and debate further. At least self-debate.


There're memes at work all right, but they're not rooted in religion.

Is this worthy of Expanding further? Once again, I'm interested. Or refer some books.

[equanimus]

Strawman argument is to tie the failed instances of social/political models, to blind 'indoctrination' like Religious fundamentalism. Why such social/political system has failed, the fact that they are ideologically 'secular' ? or because of a "failed direction" taken up by rebel leaders and their propaganda? this again comes under blind idolatry, a 'meme' as noted by Kannannn.
Thilak,
But you do realise that all these can be said of theism as well, don't you? This is essentially the same as holding that it wasn't the ideology in its "pure original" form that caused its failure, but the subsequent happenings that polluted it. (And of course, the notion of a "pure origin" should ring a bell.) For instance, I found it more than a bit odd that Kannan referred to some of the massacrers in question as "so-called atheists!" Now where have we heard that before?

[podalangai]

Well he makes a pretty convincing case with neat references. I'm willing to hear your take, with references of scholarly works on rise of state, the roots, and effects of German historicism. Or better yet, point me to books. I'm willing to listen, and debate further.

Much of the key work on the rise of the state is in German - scholars like Paul-Ludwig Weinacht and Wolfgang Mager. I'm at work now, if I have some free time over the coming days I'll try and post a summary of why Dawkins' historical theories are really without basis.

[kid-glove]

what you call "indoctrination", not religion - and that there isn't a necessary relationship between religion and "indoctrination", any more than there is between communism and "indoctrination".

Indoctrination is applicable to any

ideology that seeks to propagate itself ideologically, rather than rationally. And every ideology has done this - including atheist ideologies (such as the Khmer Rouge, which sought to eradicate religion by force). Dawkins says that when an atheist ideology uses means other than reason, it isn't the fault of atheism. Fine.

I'm in agreement until this. But,

But it does show that it isn't belief in God that makes an ideology susceptible to being used for evil. This isn't unique to religion - it's a lot more pervasive than that.

I disagree here. Lack of reason, doctrines, and blind faith owes a lot of debt to Religion. Such behavioral patterns has seeped into all entities or factions that we now refer and term as 'ideologies'.

[kid-glove]

Well he makes a pretty convincing case with neat references. I'm willing to hear your take, with references of scholarly works on rise of state, the roots, and effects of German historicism. Or better yet, point me to books. I'm willing to listen, and debate further.

Much of the key work on the rise of the state is in German - scholars like Paul-Ludwig Weinacht and Wolfgang Mager. I'm at work now, if I have some free time over the coming days I'll try and post a summary of why Dawkins' historical theories are really without basis.

Great, thanks.

[kid-glove]

But you do realise that all these can be said of theism as well, don't you?
But the roots of such undesirable qualities in other "ideologies" could be traced to Theism, not Atheism. "Secular ideologies" have been guilty (which is the main point you're hitting at, no?). That's no fault of atheism in such cases of misapplication. Atheism is based on truth, science, evidence, and open for debate/criticism and totally rational


This is essentially the same as holding that it wasn't the ideology in its "pure original" form that caused its failure, but the subsequent happenings that polluted it.
The very fundamentals of this "pure original" form any given time-line, based on 'creationism', is BS. It reeks of undesirable qualities like I have mentioned above - blinding lies, blindly authoritative, lack of evidence, or what have you.


For instance, I found it more than a bit odd that Kannan referred to some of the massacrers in question as "so-called atheists!" Now where have we heard that before?
Depends on adaptations one has access to.
May: History is written by the winners. :)

[equanimus]

Besides, Dawkins never visualized an 'imaginary' scenario(that Gray proposes) of religious behavior not being propagated if had been stopped in school and families. In stead Dawkins thinks of it a 'by-product' that might have been beneficial at the time, and that has been passed-over for centuries.
No, I guess you've misunderstood Gray's point here. That statement in his piece is about what Dawkins seems to think of the situation "today" and not "at that time."

Religion is definitely *one* of the hindrance. It is one of the reasons that people take up to, and in large groups.
Podalangai has already responded to this point (that it is one of the things), and I'm very much in agreement with him.


Isn't this something that could easily pass for some kind of fundamentalist theology?
What kind? Unlike 'fundamentalism' as we know now, there are no imaginary sacred texts to strictly abide by, to do irrational things. :lol:
But it does imagine a situation in which the "good" would stay "good." :) I was basically referring to the cautionary tone in saying something to that effect, which has more in common with fundamentalist theologies than what would appear at first look.

[kid-glove]

That statement in his piece is about what Dawkins seems to think of the situation "today" and not at that time
Gray writes about the book "The God delusion", and chapter "The roots of religion". The whole paragraph is on the book. And he writes pretty clearly 'if it were not inculcated in schools and families'. And a rubbish assertion to follow, of course.

[kannannn]

With so many arguments flying around, let me make clear what I mean. Among others, atheism is the ability to give up the belief in a set of rules or codes purportedly inherited from a divine source. So, there is nothing in atheism itself that drives anyone to mistreat fellow humans. It is a blank slate. Any other beliefs adopted by practitioners of atheism is solely due to their own failings as a human being and cannot be attributed to intepretation of any code (which cannot be said of religions). So, Lenin might have driven his comrades to loot the Orthodox Church during the Great Famine due to his hatred of religion, or Stalin might have embarked on a mission to wipe out 'Kulaks' or any of the following could have been comitted in the name of secularism, but they were all driven by personal hatred, power quest or other ideologies, perhaps political, but none of which can by no means be related to atheism). Murder of a religious man for his religious beliefs by any atheist corresponds to human nature in its barest form. Personality cults and allegiance to the state are examples of this barest form. Nothing can change that. There is no reason or set of codes to fall back on for the atheist to justify his behavior. Atheism, as I see it, is reasonable enough to change its sign on the London bus (http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01217/Atheist-Bus_1217553c.jpg) from "There is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" to "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life".

I will let the other arguments sink in and respond in due course..


So many of the worst horrors of the 20th century had nothing to do with religion. The horrors of the two World Wars, the Holocaust, Stalinism, the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, the Holodomor, Black July in Sri Lanka, Darfur - all these were perpetrated in the name of secular ideologies, and not religion.

[equanimus]

That statement in his piece is about what Dawkins seems to think of the situation "today" and not at that time
Gray writes about the book "The God delusion", and chapter "The roots of religion". The whole paragraph is on the book. And he writes pretty clearly 'if it were not inculcated in schools and families'. And a rubbish assertion to follow, of course.
Just to clarify, Thilak, Gray has used a present unreal conditional clause here. He's indeed talking about the present.

[kid-glove]

That statement in his piece is about what Dawkins seems to think of the situation "today" and not at that time
Gray writes about the book "The God delusion", and chapter "The roots of religion". The whole paragraph is on the book. And he writes pretty clearly 'if it were not inculcated in schools and families'. And a rubbish assertion to follow, of course.
Just to clarify, Thilak, Gray has used a present unreal conditional clause here. He's indeed talking about the present.
Dawkins never really manufactured a scenario that religion would not exist if it had been stopped in schools and families at "present".

The passages I quote is what Dawkins infers had been the reason why religious behavior had been propagated thus far, and that is a by-product.

Gray had got it wrong EVEN if he talked about "present". As I maintain, the bloke never got to read the book. And there are judgmental assertions spread across the article.

[kid-glove]

With so many arguments flying around, let me make clear what I mean. Among others, atheism is the ability to give up the belief in a set of rules or codes purportedly inherited from a divine source. So, there is nothing in atheism itself that drives anyone to mistreat fellow humans. It is a blank slate. Any other beliefs adopted by practitioners of atheism is solely due to their own failings as a human being and cannot be attributed to intepretation of any code (which cannot be said of religions). So, Lenin might have driven his comrades to loot the Orthodox Church during the Great Famine due to his hatred of religion, or Stalin might have embarked on a mission to wipe out 'Kulaks' or any of the following could have been comitted in the name of secularism, but they were all driven by personal hatred, power quest or other ideologies, perhaps political, but none of which can by no means be related to atheism). Murder of a religious man for his religious beliefs by any atheist corresponds to human nature in its barest form. Personality cults and allegiance to the state are examples of this barest form. Nothing can change that. There is no reason or set of codes to fall back on for the atheist to justify his behavior. Atheism, as I see it, is reasonable enough to change its sign on the London bus (http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01217/Atheist-Bus_1217553c.jpg) from "There is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" to "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life".

Exactly. The italicized words especially. I believe we need to look across a more demeaning word if we were to frame such man-slayers on basis of religious belief. As you said, by grounds of atheism, it's human nature in its barest form, more in line with an "animal" so to speak, which by the way is an allusion to "Evolution" itself.

As Dawkins put it, such behavior could be attributed to "atheistic inclination" as it would to their moustache. :lol2:

[equanimus]

Dawkins never really manufactured a scenario that religion would not exist if it had been stopped in schools and families at "present".

The passages I quote is what Dawkins infers had been the reason why religious behavior had been propagated thus far, and that is a by-product.

Gray had got it wrong EVEN if he talked about "present".
Oh, ok. Got it. I'd asked if you could clarify because you wrote, "Dawkins thinks of it a 'by-product' that might have been beneficial at the time," and in one of the passages you quoted, he does refer to religion as "an unfortunate by-product of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful."

[kid-glove]

The quotes which I put up here might have been singularly misleading . But when read in course of the full chapter, it is properly structured and arrives at a logical assertion - nothing like unfounded or fallacious as Gray would like to believe.

[kid-glove]

I concede being a bit guilty of not wording it properly. "beneficial at the time" does not fully texture the point "underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful".

In the book, it is explained further,

The idea of psychological by-products grows naturally out of the important and developing field of evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that, just as the eye is an evolved organ for seeing, and the wing an evolved organ for flying, so the brain is a collection of organs (or 'modules') for dealing with a set of specialist data-processing needs. There is a module for dealing with kinship, a module for dealing with reciprocal exchanges, a module for dealing with empathy, and so on. Religion can be seen as a by-product of the misfiring of several of these modules, for example the modules for forming theories of other minds, for forming coalitions, and for discriminating in favour of in-group members and against strangers. Any of these could serve as the human equivalent of the moths' celestial navigation, vulnerable to misfiring in the same kind of way as I suggested for childhood gullibility. The psychologist Paul Bloom, another advocate of the 'religion is a by-product' view, points out that children have a natural tendency towards a dualistic theory of mind. Religion, for him, is a by-product of such instinctive dualism. We humans, he suggests, and especially children, are natural born dualists. A dualist acknowledges a fundamental distinction between matter and mind. A monist, by contrast, believes that mind is a manifestation of matter - material in a brain or perhaps a computer

(and then he writes about intentional stance)

Not as if it's been "acquired" through generations, the origin of such thoughts/belief could be deduced from psychology. And remarkably enough, this explanation doesn't fully concede religious thoughts/inclinations being fully a "social construct" (Take note Mr.Gray), but also originated by some inherent psychological reaction in the brain, which would later be confounded, and latched-on by elders.

[harishkumar09]

Richard Dawkins books are awesome and thought provoking. A must read for atheists,theists and spiritualists.

[kannannn]

I think we are going around in circles. Nonetheless..

The Non-eastern religions clearly have it wrong in thinking that religion is about good and bad. That is simply not the point of it at all.
Anbu, the point of the debates, atleast from my perspective, is not to judge which religion is greatest, or if religion is the only way to spirituality. The arguments are if a belief in a supernatural being leads, down the line, to commit abhorent acts which we would not normally commit in the absence of such belief. Sufism, Hinduism and Buddhism may, or may not be ideal for spiritual reasons, but I would like to leave that debate for another time :D. I would, however, like to make this point.

In religion, concepts are not truth. A concept can at most be a pointer to Truth, and not anything else.
"When the sage points to the moon, all that the fool sees is the finger", said the Master :D. Unfortunately, for most of us the finger is all that is visible.


Nor does any ideology that seeks to propagate itself ideologically, rather than rationally. And every ideology has done this - including atheist ideologies (such as the Khmer Rouge, which sought to eradicate religion by force).
I have been meaning to say this before, but let us leave communism out of this. I am sure you will agree that the hatred to religion of communist governments you have quoted originates from the Marxist view that religion sustains class distinction. That view was first rooted in economics and later became political. That's a fascinating discussion in itself, but it is not very relevant to our arguments.

Dawkins says that when an atheist ideology uses means other than reason, it isn't the fault of atheism. Fine. But it does show that it isn't belief in God that makes an ideology susceptible to being used for evil. This isn't unique to religion - it's a lot more pervasive than that.
There is no such thing as atheist ideology. The ONLY belief in atheism is the belief in the absence of a God. Nothing more follows from that.

This is actually a sweeping statement and clearly relies more on a kind of faith than reason. What constitutes the "danger" that you're alluding to? Why exactly is any belief without reason "dangerous?" Or, to turn the tables, how exactly is any belief with reason good or even less "dangerous?" Note that I'm NOT arguing that belief with reason is dangerous, but merely questioning the opposite.
I think that is the root of our argument. Belief without reason can either be personal or communal. While personal irrational belief (I think we can agree to call belief without reason that) is not a threat to society, it could nonetheless lead the individual to commit acts which might harm him economically, physically or mentally. It is irrational belief, common to a group of people, I am more concerned with. It doesn't take long for such beliefs to morph into harmful acts detrimental to society. Examples can be given for both kinds of beliefs, but I will not do so, for fear of instigating a mud-slinging match. Belief with reason leads one to question that belief in light of new evidence. That ability to change one's belief stems from rationality and courage. Of course, there is always an element of chance that might lead to dangerous situations, but such chances are natural and beyond our control. I don't think the same can be said of irrational belief.

[podalangai]

There is no such thing as atheist ideology. The ONLY belief in atheism is the belief in the absence of a God. Nothing more follows from that.
If atheism is only belief in the absence of God, religion is only belief in God. If the trappings of communitarian ideologies which include belief in the absence of God say nothing about atheism, the trappings of communitarian ideologies which include belief in the existence of God also say nothing about religion.

Comparing the ideal of atheism with institutionalised religion is hardly a fair comparison, if the question is whether belief in God leads to evil (as Dawkins says it does). If the point is that religion as institutionalised belief leads to evil, I actually wouldn't argue with that - though, I would argue (and can elaborate, if there's a need) that the problem is institutionalisation, not belief.

[podalangai]

Great, thanks.
Apologies, this will be delayed. My library doesn't have two of the books I'd like to refer to (and I'm not going to rely on my fallible memory). I've ordered them, so give me a couple of weeks.

[podalangai]

While personal irrational belief (I think we can agree to call belief without reason that) is not a threat to society, it could nonetheless lead the individual to commit acts which might harm him economically

Apropos of which, a hasidic tale which I think you might like.

In Poland many years ago, a hasid was taking his son to heder [a type of Jewish primary school common in pre-Holocaust Europe]. As they walked across the village square, a grand carriage pulled by four magnificent white horses came down the road and drew to a halt in the square. Out stepped a man clad in rich furs trimmed with gold and wearing dazzling jewels.

The hasid turned to his son and said, "Look closely, my son. For unless you devote your life to God and his Torah, that is how you will end up."

[equanimus]

This is actually a sweeping statement and clearly relies more on a kind of faith than reason. What constitutes the "danger" that you're alluding to? Why exactly is any belief without reason "dangerous?" Or, to turn the tables, how exactly is any belief with reason good or even less "dangerous?" Note that I'm NOT arguing that belief with reason is dangerous, but merely questioning the opposite.
I think that is the root of our argument.
That was precisely my intention, Kannan. :) Let's keep this debate pointed. (Also, see this (http://mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?p=1909704#1909704).) And, very much like Gray, my interest lies solely in puncturing some of the claims of the New Atheists which, I think, betray more than a little wishful thinking.

Belief without reason can either be personal or communal. While personal irrational belief (I think we can agree to call belief without reason that) is not a threat to society, it could nonetheless lead the individual to commit acts which might harm him economically, physically or mentally. It is irrational belief, common to a group of people, I am more concerned with. It doesn't take long for such beliefs to morph into harmful acts detrimental to society. Examples can be given for both kinds of beliefs, but I will not do so, for fear of instigating a mud-slinging match. Belief with reason leads one to question that belief in light of new evidence. That ability to change one's belief stems from rationality and courage. Of course, there is always an element of chance that might lead to dangerous situations, but such chances are natural and beyond our control. I don't think the same can be said of irrational belief.
kannannn,
Surely you would concede that phrases like "belief with reason" or "rational belief" imply two separate "moves?" One that involves "reason" and and another that involves "belief." A person reasons out certain things and then makes the leap to believe certain things. Would you agree with me if I say reason is quite "soulless?" I mean, reason is not out there to serve humanity, surely? In purely rational terms, there's no reason why one shouldn't end up his own life and that of others. Is Man's drive to live out of reason? I fail to understand how you associate Reason with all sorts of moral obligations (killing people etc.) you bring to this discussion. Why is a man driven by reason less likely to kill people? I'm not implying that he's more likely to. I'm asking this merely because you're upholding Reason and hence my question on how it "betters" one. What is at play here is a belief system of what's right and what's wrong (a system of ethics if you insist on distinguishing between ethics and morality) that makes one evaluate one's actions.

If you're talking about enquiry into the nature of self, the universe and suchlike, many religious traditions are also born out of the same, as anbu_kathir says. It's flippant to think otherwise. I seriously think Gray makes a terrific point linking today's atheists to various religious traditions. And even if one is to examine in the realms of "the present," there have always been reformers within various religious frameworks. Why wouldn't you concede that that is akin to "[changing] one's belief?" When he is making the sort of "promises" we've been discussing about, what Dawkins is doing is quite similar. And I don't mean to be dismissive of it at all.

Aside 1: I think it's incorrect to mix up atheism and rationalism, which I think are very different things. (Personally speaking, in abstract terms, if one's to understand atheism as merely the absence of belief in God, I'd qualify as an atheist. But I'd spectacularly fail the rationalist test any which way I imagine it!) Again "the pure rational" is a tricky thing and different people have different notions of it. It's often said that Kubrick had a fear of flying. But in his words, as he began to be aware of the unsafe aspects of flying, it got to him. In simple words, "why take the risk?" Now this is actually entirely logical (!), but can easily be dubbed as an irrational fear.

Aside 2: We would do well to understand why many theists have historically shown strong inclination to treat atheists with a sort of contempt. It is precisely the "absence of promise" (of a good life or a better world) that they find disconcerting more than anything else! So indeed it is no coincidence that atheism gains popularity when the atheists come around and make such promises!

[equanimus]

By the way, I hope I don't come off as anti-rational in the course of this debate. Indeed it is reason that I strive for when participating in this very discussion. So, evidently (duh!), I value it a lot. But I get suspicious when it's taken beyond the realms of what's often referred to as "cold logic." :)

[P_R]

Great post Eq. Particularly the two asides. I do not like to slot myself as an atheist precisely because (among other reasons) my irrationalities are too obvious (and dear) to me.

Most of my prejudice and disinterest I have about atheism - new or old - is because it offers nothing. A large dose of baseless patronization with a small dash of aside 2 type contempt is something I nurse.

So the post kinda explained me to myself :lol2:

[app_engine]

Not directly related to the book, just related to its title :

http://tamil.webdunia.com/newsworld/news/tnnews/0910/02/1091002004_1.htm

What is the root of this specific evil?

[anbu_kathir]

The Non-eastern religions clearly have it wrong in thinking that religion is about good and bad. That is simply not the point of it at all.
Anbu, the point of the debates, atleast from my perspective, is not to judge which religion is greatest, or if religion is the only way to spirituality. The arguments are if a belief in a supernatural being leads, down the line, to commit abhorent acts which we would not normally commit in the absence of such belief. Sufism, Hinduism and Buddhism may, or may not be ideal for spiritual reasons, but I would like to leave that debate for another time :D. I would, however, like to make this point.

In religion, concepts are not truth. A concept can at most be a pointer to Truth, and not anything else.
"When the sage points to the moon, all that the fool sees is the finger", said the Master :D. Unfortunately, for most of us the finger is all that is visible.


Kannan,

I didn't intend to compare the 'greatness' (if there is any such thing) of one religion to another. What I meant was that there are different ways to 'point to the moon' (which is what religions are meant to do) and some of which are more 'direct', while others are more 'indirect' (what you have with the Christian doctrine of today, Islam, many sects of Hinduism, in general as you rightly said, with the beliefs of most of the theists of this world).

The more philosophical traditions of Hinduism (my favourite being Advaita) and Buddhism very clearly hold the idea that all 'forms' and 'names' are not-real (not-constant and always-changing). This includes all the objects of the human mind, and therefore all concepts related to God, all rules, all doctrine and all the Gods themselves. Every form is utmost a metaphor, and naturally some metaphors are more 'transparent' to the Non-Dual-Creator (who is not a 'personal' God in any way) than others.

I personally think that this style of approaching religion can easily seep through today, because the 'interconnectedness' of the world is quickly apparent to most of us and moreover its far more appealing and simple to a logical mind than the traditions with Unchanging Personal Divine Entities.

Because of this level of clarity, it is reasonably more difficult to inculcate fundamental attitudes within the practitioners of such traditions. In fact, no group of people who completely and clearly understand this fact would encourage hatred in their minds, even against those who bear down upon them. A striking example can be seen in the Tibetan tradition of Buddhism, practised by HH Dalai-Lama and co.

All religions, in my opinion, are therefore a collection of metaphors to this Non-Duality, and these metaphors are presented to the practitioners of the religions as myth and ritual. Both the proponents and the opponents of religion by and large miss this critical point and interpret religion wrongly as being closer to prose than poetry, to science than art. If religion was indeed so, then there's no point in holding on to it. But because it is not that way, doing away with such 'metaphors' (rather than 'beliefs') would have the same impact to the world (and the individual) as doing away with art and dreams would.

Of course, I do think that the metaphors (the myths and rituals) need to be adapted based on current scientific facts so that they can better communicate with the people. Clearly I see no point in holding on to the '7-days of Creation' or 'Tortoise-bearing-the-Earth' (etc., etc., etc.) at this stage of our scientific evolution. Star-Wars (the first 3 parts) and the Matrix trilogy seem a far more meaningful mythological start to hold on today. At the same time, living a totally rational life seems impossible to me.

Love and Light.

[anbu_kathir]

The arguments are if a belief in a supernatural being leads, down the line, to commit abhorent acts which we would not normally commit in the absence of such belief.


In the pretext of defending my stand, I think I chose to completely ignore this. Well, in my personal world-view, I think what causes these acts of hatred, or any hatred at all, is not simply the belief in a supernatural being, but fear and self-righteousness.

When you have a religious system which adheres to a pissed-off-Divine power who packs one of to hell if one commits the 'wrong' deeds and 'rewards' one for the 'right' deeds (right and wrong being thought of as absolute and fixed), or even an impersonal 'rule' like Karma which does the same, inherently one is afraid of being 'bad' and ends up looking at those who are 'different'(not belonging to the same religious system) as 'bad'.

Self righteousness further adds to the problem. With a theology that claims to be "the only true way to God", one automatically ends up being confused and irate with other ways (if he/she sticks to such a religious dogma) or with one's own way (if he/she doesn't). The same holds for any system, be it of relationships between two people, two communities, or two governments. Where there is fear and self-righteousness, there is always going to be tension.

When one has a religious system that accepts the inter-relationship of the bodies and the minds of all the peoples of the world, (Buddhism, for example, is founded on such a principle), it naturally heals the fear that one has for the 'different'. Just like fear and hatred naturally arise in the previous case, genuine compassion and love arise with such a world-view.

Love and Light.

[kid-glove]

What claims do the New Atheists make? "Evolution" is not a claim, but common sense. With due respect to Darwin, it baffles me that it took so long till 19th Century. :) I fail to understand the false promises, and prophecies that Atheists (new, old, and in-between) are purported to have made. I'd say such an accusation is skewed, ungrounded and cynical, wide off the mark. A patient, diplomatic and well-articulated take (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/mar/22/featuresreviews.guardianreview21)by Simon Jenkins might be useful at this point.

Re. Aside1: The very distinction between rationality and irrationality could be realized in an open Anti-Creationist mode of thinking. Atheists have their irrationalities that endear and comfort them, but one is able to understand the reasons by powers of deduction. Going by your example, Kubrick's fear of flying is said "irrational", but Atheism gives ground to deconstruct it further, and is not withheld by superstition. It goes on to understand phobic disorders. And to go beyond the phobia, fear of height is genetically programmed in our species. We share this with most speciies in Mammalia. Fear is a biological reaction and it turns irrational only if one is afraid of flying spaghetti monsters. :lol2:

Re. Aside2, " "absence of promise" (of a good life or a better world) ": I'd rewrite it as absence of false promise/prophecy in its entirety & rebuke of fraudulent predictions(incl. Astrology) is the essence of Atheism. The very fundamentals are transgressed if Atheists go for unfounded promises. :)

[app_engine]

'Expelled - No intelligence allowed'

WOW!

A must-watch documentary for every "admirer" of Richard Dawkins :wink:

(Disclaimer - I'm definitely not one, simply thrilled to watch this fellow "drinking water" in an interview in this docu. A must watch for atheists, theists, spiritualists, rationalists, creationists, intelligent-designists, agnostics)

[kid-glove]

One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.

More About This Movie
Overview
New York Times Review
Cast, Credits & Awards
Readers' Reviews
Positing the theory of intelligent design as a valid scientific hypothesis, the film frames the refusal of “big science” to agree as nothing less than an assault on free speech. Interviewees, including the scientist Richard Sternberg, claim that questioning Darwinism led to their expulsion from the scientific fold (the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy — after this, therefore because of this), while our genial audience surrogate, the actor and multihyphenate Ben Stein, nods sympathetically. (Mr. Stein is also a freelance columnist who writes Everybody’s Business for The New York Times.)

Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins — accurately identified on screen as an “atheist” — are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.

Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in “Planet of the Apes.” This is not argument, it’s circus, a distraction from the film’s contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term.

Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn “Expelled” is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.

Sounds like a horrible movie.[/tscii:ccc08e4a9c]

[kid-glove]

[tscii:ce5145e53c]
The film's extensive use of Michael Moore-style devices was commented upon, but the film was widely considered unamusing and unsubtle, boring, poorly made, unconvincing, insulting,and offensive to the religious.
In Canada, The Globe & Mail's film review gave the film a score of 0 and called "an appallingly unscrupulous example of hack propaganda".Vue Weekly called it an "anti-science propaganda masquerading as a Michael Moore-ish fool's journey, full of disingenuous ploys, cheap tricks, and outright mendacity."
On April 18, 2008, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued a statement about Expelled. The AAAS was "especially disappointed to learn that the producers of an intelligent design propaganda movie called 'Expelled' are inappropriately pitting science against religion."The statement "further decries the profound dishonesty and lack of civility demonstrated by this effort", and said the movie "seeks to force religious viewpoints into science class – despite court decisions that have struck down efforts to bring creationism and intelligent design into schools."[/tscii:ce5145e53c]

:lol: :roll:

[app_engine]

When the leading atheist Dawkins is humbled on screen, is it surprising that his staunch followers thrash the movie?

Watch only the scene where the narrator meets Dawkins, even if you consider every other scene is a biased boredom :-)

[kid-glove]

Nah, these are independent newspapers, and lot of the reviewers were believers, staunch catholics, for all you know.

It's not just Dawkins, almost everyone interviewed said it's bogus and a trick, as they were questioned on 'possibility' and so on, and later it were cut and edited differently. :lol:

And it's not just about style it was made, but the content of the documentary (if you could call it that) is phony.

[tscii:bcfdd18122]

“Expelled” is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. [/tscii:bcfdd18122]

[app_engine]

One more good reason why I should not decide to either watch or not watch certain movies based on reviews :-)

I simply watched this based on a reco from a friend and thoroughly enjoyed portions of it.

[kid-glove]

Glad you enjoyed it. :thumbsup:

[irir123]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evIn00lhq8Q&feature=related

[kid-glove]

http://nickcohen.net/2012/09/03/the-last-words-of-christopher-hitchens/

Poignancy aside, characteristically provocative..

[kid-glove]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A2z6J64CAAEWvxM.jpg:large

[kid-glove]

http://richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2012/9/21/innocence-of-muslims#.UF1jHY3iZcR

A letter in today’s Guardian epitomises everything that is wrong with the liberal apologia towards Islamic violence.

While Tony Blair was being interviewed about the unrest in the Middle East on the Today programme, I found it extraordinary that he should have referred to the film Innocents of Muslims as being "laughable" (Report, 18 September). If ever a film was made with the specific intention of provoking Muslims worldwide, this is it. Having viewed the trailer on YouTube, I believe it was absolutely predictable that the cruel and vulgar depiction of Muhammad would result in outrage among ordinary Muslims and violent reaction against the US and the west by Islamist extremists. Surely those who made and then distributed this disgusting – not laughable – film, bear as much responsibility for the violence as those who are reacting against it.
Terence English Oxford

Tony Blair, for once, was right: Innocence of Muslims is laughable in the sense of contemptible (for its poor artistic quality), though not at all laughable in the laugh-worthy sense of “Life of Brian” (which is surely one of the greatest satirical comedies ever produced, in any genre). But neither of those senses is the one intended by Terence English. He means that the reaction provoked by the film is too serious to be funny. He is right that the film is “disgusting”, but not because it offends Muslims. It is just a dreadful film – laughable in Tony Blair’s sense.

Terence English makes the all too common liberal error of patronising Muslims by assuming that their bigoted intransigence is a fixed fact of life which cannot be criticised, but must be accommodated like the laws of physics. It is a dubious application, not to say misapplication, of the classic limitation on free speech where “It’s like shouting ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre.” Well yes, I see the point but no, there is an important difference. Fire is a chemical reaction that presents huge danger to everybody in a crowded theatre. That danger follows inevitaby from the laws of physics. The danger from Muslim over-reaction to trivial slights to their prophet is entirely man-made and inexcusable. As Nick Cohen points out, in You Can’t Read this Book, the real offence is to assume that Muslims are incapable of civilised behaviour. This patronises and insults Muslims in ways that – if the liberal apologists would only think it through – goes right against their deepest liberal convictions: “Poor dears, they don’t have civilised ways like us, it’s part of their culture.” That’s the ignominiously coded meaning of “respect” in this case.

Having said that, there is a sense in which Muslim intransigence is an obvious fact of life today, and a realist must reluctantly admit that the parallel to shouting “Fire” has a certain pragmatic merit. While anybody has a perfect right to say what they like about any dead prophet, in this case you kind of wish they wouldn’t. What has no merit whatsoever, however, is Terence English’s conclusion that those who made and distributed the film “bear as much responsibility for the violence as those who are reacting against it.” No they don’t. That way madness lies.

Life of Brian reminds us of the contrast between Christian and Muslim reactions to offence. Christians were furious about that sublimely brilliant film, and they blathered and pontificated pathetically (in notorious cases never having seen it), but they stopped short of murder and arson. It would be completely impossible for the Monty Python team to get funding to make a comparable film about Mohammed. An additional consequence of Muslim intransigence and violence, then, is that high quality, sharply satirical movies about Mohammed cannot be made. With the exception of Theo van Gogh’s beautiful film Submission, the only anti-Islamic output that slips through the net is rubbish like Innocence of Muslims, and that is artistically regrettable.

Today’s newsppapers also bring us the story of an American actor in the same infamous film, who is trying to get Innocence of Muslims suppressed, on the grounds that she was deceived into taking part. Nobody told her it was a film about Mohammed. She answered an advertisement describing it as a “historical Arabian Desert adventure film” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/20/anti-muslim-clip-youtube-innocence?INTCMP=SRCH) The Islamic references were all, according to her, dubbed in later. The judge has rejected her request because of a technicality.

I have sympathy for her, having been deceived myself into taking part in more than one film which turned out to be other than it was portrayed. And she seems to have come up with the only good grounds for suppressing Innocence of Muslims. It should certainly not be suppressed because of the alleged “offence” to a lot of paranoid Islamists, for whom being offended has become more or less their only occupation – perhaps they have nothing better to do. But if she is telling the truth, the film should be suppressed because it was made under false pretences, deceiving the actors who, in good faith, took part in it and now find their professional reputations, not to mention their lives, at risk. That really is a good reason for pulling the film off YouTube, and I would not be sorry if the US authorities acted to do so. Moreover, if the makers of the film are to be punished, it should be for recruiting actors under false pretences, not for insulting the prophet of Islam.

[geno]

It is important to note that Richard Dwakins' website published the news about the Adam's bridge near Palk Straits being claimed as a bridge built by Rama.

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1748-report-on-hindu-god-ram-withdrawn

Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn
"The Indian government has withdrawn a controversial report submitted in court earlier this week which questioned the existence of the Hindu god Ram.

The report was withdrawn after huge protests by opposition parties.

The report was presented to the Supreme Court on Wednesday in connection with a case against a proposed shipping canal project between India and Sri Lanka.

Hindu hardliners say the project will destroy what they say is a bridge built by Ram and his army of monkeys.

Scientists and archaeologists say the Ram Setu (Lord Ram's bridge) - or Adam's Bridge as it is sometimes called - is a natural formation of sand and stones.

No evidence

In their report submitted to the court, the government and the Archaeological Survey of India questioned the belief, saying it was solely based on the Hindu mythological epic Ramayana.

They said there was no scientific evidence to prove that the events described in Ramayana ever took place or that the characters depicted in the epic were real.

Hindu activists say the bridge was built by Lord Ram's monkey army to travel to Sri Lanka and has religious significance......."

Comments Section has some hilarious comments to this article!

[brigs]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A2z6J64CAAEWvxM.jpg:large

Great example of how religion spoils everything... planting such violent thoughts in children at such tender age should be a crime. what is the mom thinking?