If you’re at all interested in the science vs religion debate, make sure to read his entire essay. Richard Dawkins is one of the deepest thinkers we have around today.
Richard Dawkins: Why There Almost Certainly Is No God
America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers. The political ascendancy today values embryonic cells over adult people. It obsesses about gay marriage, ahead of genuinely important issues that actually make a difference to the world. It gains crucial electoral support from a religious constituency whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they expect to be ‘raptured’ up to heaven, leaving their clothes as empty as their minds. More extreme specimens actually long for a world war, which they identify as the ‘Armageddon’ that is to presage the Second Coming. Sam Harris, in his new short book, Letter to a Christian Nation, hits the bull’s-eye as usual: placed by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen[.]
Ok, prove me wrong, chumps!
It pleases me enormously that so much sense and clear thoughts are being published these days.
I don’t know if the current politic strangulation of science and the pop ups of intelligent design trolls enforces the efforts made by Dawkins, Harris and others.
But regardless; it’s about time, and it’s hope more people start getting a counterweight to the religious manipulation 😉
Please you people, I do need your help.
Save me from the religious manipulation that has controlled and ruined my life!
I only bought into because of the rosy afterlife promises they gave me.
Geesh.
I just ordered his new book, The God Delusion, after seeing him on The Colbert Report. Can’t wait to read it!
James Madison – the father of the Constitution wrote:
“Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
James Madison, June 20, 1785, from “To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, A Memorial and Remonstrance”
Richard Dawkins rules!
I’m agnostic, but frankly have always envied those with genuine faith. Their lives can be simpler and much less rocky to travel. Let us not confuse the many that quietly lives their lives with faith, with the few who are loud and obnoxious. I have always thought Descartes argument was worth consideration.
Let’s see????????????
70 or so years here believing and trusting in God = Eternal Life
VS
70 or so years here hating and fighting God. = Eternal Damnation
I’m choosing Eternal Life. Being wrong is just too permanent.
(Actually God is a very good friend of mine, and there are many advantages for the here and now, but even without these perks I would go for the long view.)
Thanks, though, for trying to convert me to your Godless faith. I appreciate your concern.
Science? Gimme strength. The empirical method requires evaluating hypotheses with appropriate means. Dawkins fails the test. The appropriate tools for evaluating the claims of religion are not – as the fundamentalists and Dawkin both believe – abstract reason, but meditation and prayer. As the great master of yoga, Paramhansa Yogananda put it, “At the inner end of the human nervous system, the mind, interiorized, communes with God.” Not an easy experiment, though widely practiced in the East, and in western monastic traditions. Dawkins completely ignores this tradition – which, btw, the science of which is beautifully described in Yogananda’s . Dawkins may be a scientist, but he’s not an honest researcher.
I’m amused and disappointed at the common generalization that religious folk are the only ignorants. there are plenty of ignorant non-religious people, and plenty of educated religious thinkers.
but, I suppose stereotyping is a form of ignorance that even the enlightened thinker of the day suffers from.
oh, and I think religious people in America miss so many points, but that doesn’t affect whether there is a God.
Didn’t Richard Dawkins host Family Fued and star in Hogans Hero’s.
Richard (5) – Yes, Madison was very worried about the role of religion in the new government. He had seen how the Church of England had used its authority and did not want to see the same thing happen with the new government. One of the main reasons people came to this country was to escape religious persecution (still a major reason today).
Madison was worried that there would be an effort to have an official ‘State Church’ for the new country, much the same as in England. His knowledge of history showed the truth in ‘Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely” and that included men of the church who at times loved their ‘power and authority’ more than their calling to faith.
Thus the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” A measure to make sure that Congress could not create a Church of the USA like the Church of England. It also makes sure that all faiths are welcome. It is also worthy to note it says ‘Congress shall make no law…” At the time of the writings, States were a much stronger influence that the Federal government (one of the the underlying foundations of the US Civil War nearly 100 years later). At the time of the writing, there was nothing to prevent a State from having a ‘sanctioned’ religion.
But this was not my focus in my comment. You see Richard, even your comment shows that religion was a major influence in the new country of America. If it wasn’t, Madison wouldn’t have been worried about it. And the 1st Ammendment wouldn’t be seen as a major issue. So Mr. Dawkins opening line, “America, founded in secularism” is still false and you, Richard, have also helped show that.
dawkins presents one of the best ad hominem arguments i’ve seen in a long while.
I resent the generalization that people of faith are mindless trolls. Look at the performance of Christian schools vs. public schools, especially in California. The liberal education system produces some of the worst results in our country’s history. I’ve worked in public after-school programs, and have seen how ill-equipped the kids are after going through the public system.
#3
You don’t need our help 😉
But if you want to get a broader perspective and then reevaluate your stand on your current take of your religion, some reading might be an excellent choice. It doesn’t necessarily mean you will loose your religion. By all means!
You might be right that you have been manipulated. Hopefully not worse than you can heal yourself.
There is this movie that’s been released recently. Some kind of Jesus camp or something. I heard it’s pretty bad, eh, manipulation going on. Anyone seen it?
Almost Certainly? I love the way he hedges his bets!
😀
I really liked him when he hosted “Family Fued.”
Oh Never mind.
Bob M, The first American legislature had the courage to declare that men of reason can trust themselves with the formation of their own opinions, without the need of gods, priests, or churches. The American Constitution still stands as a secular document, with the purposeful omission of God, Jesus, and Christianity.
Ida know – this guy sounds militant in his defense of pure empiricism. He doesn’t even want to appease the religious moderates, as he thinks they are merely trying to soft sell intelligent design. It’s his way or else! Isn’t this what the Puritans were trying to escape when they landed here?
The trouble I have with people like Dawkins (or Bill Maher, etc) is they act like “they know”, yet nothing they say or write is convincing. In fact they sound more as if they’re trying to convince themselves. (Anyone catch Bill Maher on his show last week or two, doing the “God argument”? I thought he ended up bruising his forehead!
In any case, whether you’re the Bible thumping fundie or the militant hand-wringing empiricist, the essence of American politics has always been compromise. So rest easy folks. When this administration is out of office, something resembling sanity will return to our lives and these extremists will fade away and leave the rest of us alone again (I hope).
From Wikipedia…
“First Amendment: addresses the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, freedom of petition, and also freedom of religion, both in terms of prohibiting the Congressional establishment of religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion.”
“Article Six also lays out that no person seeking to hold office shall be required to be a person of faith, stating that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”.
#8 – Let’s see????????????
70 or so years here believing and trusting in God = Eternal Life
VS
70 or so years here hating and fighting God. = Eternal Damnation
I’m choosing Eternal Life. Being wrong is just too permanent.
I reject your premise. I do not hate or fight God, for there is nothing to hate or fight. I do not hate thiests for the same reason that I do not hate ducks for quacking. It’s all they can do. But I do fight them, because I am not Ghandi. I wil not be passive when I am attacked, and theists are attackers.
You’ve taken Pascal up on the wager, and placed your bet. I would remind you that it isn’t a binary choice, which is why Pascal was wrong. In his era, where you had the state church and not, the choice was no less inane, but it was harder to see that it was insane.
Which variation on the Christian god is “the” god? What if Islam is right? What if it really is Zeus and the gods of Olympus? What if God is something else entirely? What if the god doesn’t care about us? Have you considered that you might just die and be dead for eternity even if there is a god?
God is a man made creation and our maddening belief in ancient supernatural myths is threatening the very survival of the species. Because I like living, I’ve chosen a side. I’ve chosen logic and reason. I’ve made the only choice that an intelligent, reasoned being can make. I am an athiest. Anything else is delusional.
Someone asked me how I can find meaning in my life if I do not believe in any religion. I was relieved that they said “any religion” and not just thier particular religion, so I gave it consideration. Honestly, I told them, I do not know exactly how to answer the question of meaning, but I know that religion is just what you use to fill the space where meaning should be.
… What we have here is nothing less than a global assault on rationality…
Auch spracht John Galt.
Thing of it is, this is not an article about whether or not God exists; it’s about the incompatibility of having an informed, reasoned public debate when relativism dictates equivalence between logic and magical thinking.
I can’t say, honestly, that I am overly impressed with Dawkin’s arguments, but largely because I can’t escape the sense that he’s been cowed by the long shadow of relativism and it’s little brother, political correctness.
The problem is that this debate has drug on so long now that it’s origins are obscured and the fundamentals taken for granted so long they’re no longer understood.
Note, for example, that a couple of folks who have suggested that the arguments presented in the article are ad hominem, which, ironically, is itself a straw man argument. The former must ignore a simple point that, in the tradition of this debate, has become obscured; both phrases are short-hand for the logic that allows the validity of an argument to be established.
The nice thing about selective reasoning is that, like fight club, it works best when it’s first principle is to deny that it exists at all.
Bob M: That, as you quite rightly point out in 2, religion (and specifically Christianity) was an important force at the time of the founding of the US it’s still quite correct to say, as Dawkins does, that the country was founded in secularism. Indeed you point out yourself in 12 the concern about religion in government. This is what Dawkins means and this is an entirely correct definition of secularism, namely that the at government (in this case) is to be concerned with the affairs of the world rather than those of the spirit and that the ordering of process of government should similarly proceed in that regard. It doesn’t mean that religion – Christianity or any other – should be disavowed but simply that the government’s business is with the business of government and that is none of the church’s direct business.
Exactly the same approach was taken by Kemal Attaturk in 1923 on the founding of the modern state of Turkey. Like Madison, Attaturk was concerned about the inappropriateness of religion as a driving force in government. For instance, despite Islam being widely followed, religious freedom is taken very seriously and overt religious or religious/political symbols and clothing (such as the niqab) are prohibited in government buildings and locations.
Arguing for a secular state or government doesn’t deny religion but actually supports the idea of religious freedom. Of course Dawkins is concerned to show that religion itself is untenable and inappropriate but I’m absolutely certain, given both his logical capability and his intellectual honesty, that he would acknowledge that at the time of Madison and the rest religion was a potent force which had value in the community for many of those participating.
Sharia law prevails in many Muslim states and can result in what many would consider serious injustice in a modern state – stoning to death a woman for adultery, for instance. Exactly the same type of injustice and excess would arise were the secular walls erected by Madison and others breached. Dawkins is rightly warning of the grave dangers if the creeping Christianisation of the US government continues and becomes stronger, that is, if the proper secular structure and emphasis wisely established by the founders (many of whom were committed Christians) is lost.
With all the people here defending religion and their beliefs, please remember one thing. After all the intelligent, thought out rationalizations you write here it all comes down to one thing….do you REALLY believe there’s this invisible man that lives in the sky and watches everything we do, every second of every day? If so, then that’s delusional. I mean, come on! You REALLY believe that?
What happens if someone comes along and says “hey, I have a new book of the Bible…God sent an angel down and dictated it to me”. Would you believe him or think he’s a nut? If you think he’s a nut, then why is everyone SO ready to believe these guys that wrote down different books of the Bible? Is it the time between the writings and the present? So if the nut that today writes a new book of the Bible, in 2000 years it will become part of the canon? Think about it, we wouldn’t believe the guy today, but we believe the guys 2000 years ago. Is that rational thought? Or is it this elusive “faith” that religious people throw around?
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. (see also stupidity)
You may want to optimise this sites’ main RSS feed for Google Reader it takes way too many clicks to get to the stories. Love the Blog though.
It is interesting that the only point anyone has actually argued is whether or not Dawkins is correct in his assertion “America, founded in secularism”.
The rest of the nay-sayers have only attacked Dawkins himself. If there were any rationale at all behind their beliefs, surely they could have refuted at least one of his more important arguments.
Max Bell (comment #22) seems as if he wants to argue a point, but never makes it. He contents himself with merely contadicting Dawkins.
And to quote the Good Book of Python “An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, it isn’t just saying ‘no it isn’t.”
In my experience people attack the man when they have no decent argument, and that is mostly what the pro-god commentors have satisfied themselves with.
One final thought about comment #8. I don’t think that hedging your bets in order to avoid going to hell constitutes faith. In fact it strikes me as an extremely good example of a complete lack of faith.
I alternate among three beliefs about God:
1. God exists but has left us completely alone in this dimension as a testing ground until each one of us discovers what we did wrong which bannished us from Heaven (God’s Space).
2. God committed “suicide” at the time of the Big Bang because being all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving was boring as hell. Thus we are bits and pieces of that fatal beginning.
3. I am God because, although, I KNOW that everyone will no longer exist after they die, I cannot know that about myself. And if I am God, look at the way you treat me.
It is almost beyond argument that the Founding Fathers were a more secular bunch than those who came later. Note that there references to religion in the US Constitution are entirely negative, banning establishment of religion, religious test for public office, or interference with the practice of religion.
Given other opportunities to draft fundamental laws (state constitutions, the constitution of the Republic of Texas, the Constitution of the Confederacy), Americans have mimicked the original, or gone even farther to establish a wall between church and state. Numerous State constitutions explicitly ban public aid to parochial schools or (in the case of the Republic of Texas) banned churchmen from holding public office.
The religiousness of the US does not derive from the Puritans (as yankee-bashers would have it) or from the Founding Fathers (as the Christian Nation types would have it) but from the Second Great Awakening in the 19th Century. But even then, American officials realized that combination of Church and State corrupted both.
Back when I was a Humanist I thought these kinds of arguments were really sharp. I could sneer with the best of them. I could reach for my booze like the best of them, to numb the pain. I planned to go out like Ernest Hemingway — when there is not enough pleasure left to compensate for the pain of existence, go blow your brains out.
You see, Humanism is a crutch for those who can’t face the idea that everything is pointless, useless and worthless. In the face of raw nihilism, escape into the irrational is necessary to survive.
I noticed Dawkins never took on Jesus Christ, the essential figure of Christianity. Christians follow Jesus. Since Jesus respected the Old Testament of the Bible, his followers do too, on that basis.
What led a Humanist to become a Christian? First, the New Testament of the Bible is a highly defensible document. Second, there are too many prophecies that have come to pass without human intervention to be chance. Third, Jesus said that what He did his followers can do. I have seen and done these things that he did. Not all of them, but most. I have a friend who has raised a dead man by the same power Jesus used. I have healed cancer and arthritis by the power of God in over 50% of the times I have prayed. I have gotten rid of ghosts, compulsions, and inner voices with a command just like Jesus did.
On that basis, I laid aside the stinking garment of nihilism and took up a loving god who proves he is here, who cares about me & what I do and will give me eternal life of fellowship with him.
Actually, dude, you sound more like you’re institutionalized. Although, most folks who make the same claims do pretty well as long as they pay their taxes and don’t get caught in the wrong motel room.
“I do not know exactly how to answer the question of meaning, but I know that religion is just what you use to fill the space where meaning should be.”
Oh for the Love Of …writing? It”s got to be, or should be your profession.
For me, the meaning of life is simply what I live for. My wife, children and other people I love (friend’s wife, neighbor’s wife…). It’s also about what I love to do (tell stupid jokes) and about not leaving a mark unless it’s a repair or improvement. If I can do all that, that’s fulfilling enough. I never thought about how to answer that favorite religious ripost, until reading your gem.
To the religious here, that’s a better life than living under threat from a shirking and absent god who owns your soul.