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!
Timbo (#30) you should rebury that man your friend raised, or you both could get into a heap of trouble.
Nice work posting this Richard Dawkins material and links. I have to admit with a bit of embarrasment that I hadn’t heard of him. But his ideas were very interesting to me though a number of points I could easily argue with.
I emailed the fellow’s name and above links on to a PhD zoologist buddy of mine in the unlikely event he hadn’t heard of the fellow.
Here is part of his reply:
“He actually came to (our university) when we were undergrads taking Zoology. I think we went for a beer with him. Glad you’re catching up on the readings you should have started in the 80s.”
Well, geez.
RBG
It’s a real shame when idiots who claim to represent Christian views end up representing real Christians. It is an even greater shame that denying the existense of God is seen as a counterpoint to these Godless idiots.
Why is it that reasonable people who can see through the many false beliefs of these idiots who claim to be Christian, cannot see that the claim itself is a falsehood?
My two cents
I think Dawkins is making a big, fundamental, mistake. He confuses Religion with Organized Religion. What Dawkins calls Religion is actually the latter – Churches.
No religion I know of preaches intolerance, hatred, and getting rid of anyone who disagrees with you, quite the opposite.
And yes, it may be irrational. IMVHO, it’s irrational because our small brains aren’t big enough to grasp all of Reality, including the possible existence of a God. Therefore we must resort to something we can’t quite explain… it’s irrational. How do you think ants or bacteria recognize or experience us, if at all?
Churches, on the other hand, exist for one reason – to gather wealth and power. They do that through manipulation of everyone’s fear of Death, the Unknown, and holding everyone hostage for their natural sexual desires. Just see, everyone likes sex, sex is sin, so everyone is a sinner, so you must repent and give money and lands to the Church to signal your repentance.
What if the Church had decided eating was sinful? Naaahhh, you couldn’t try to go without eating, but you can go and try to live without sex. So there, excellent choice.
However, all Churches shoot themselves in the foot when they start trying to *organize* religion. Religious ‘things’ don’t happen following a scientific criteria. One person may claim he/she is having a ‘vision’, and it may be true to him/her (and True in a Larger sense), and nobody else be able to experience that ‘vision’. It’s illogical. It’s irrational. *That’s* religion. Now we may try what we can to explain it away, but it’ll always be there.
As for God existing or not, it’s impossible to prove or disprove. Dawkin’s book should better be titled ‘The Church Manipulation’ or something like that, because that’s all it’s about.
And you always should respect people’s beliefs, especially if they’re peaceful, like most genuinely religious beliefs are. Dawkins doesn’t do that – he seems to expect people to drop their beliefs just like that, after being confronted by the blinding light of Scientific Truth. It doesn’t work that way.
Dawkins may be brilliant, but even brilliant people can be naive – he is when he doesn’t see how religion has been manipulated for political ends for millenia.
Things don’t have meaning. We create meaning from the randomness that is the universe.
Uncle Dave: Dawkins = “one of the deepest thinkers we have around today”?!?
I saw Dawkins’s BBC documentary rebroadcast on CBC’s Hot Type, after which there was a ‘debate’ between him and various religiosity types – I have to say that Dawkins’s views are about as subtle as a 14 year-old’s. I’m no believer, but as Terry Eagleton (himself a Marxist and no fan of religion) says, you got to take on the BEST arguments that religion has to offer, not the worst ones. Check out Eagleton’s vivisection of Dawkins’s book at the London Review of Books:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
As Carl Sagan remarked, “We live on a hunk of rock and metal that orbits a humdrum star in the obscure outskirts of an ordinary galaxy comprised of some 400 billion stars in a universe of some hundred billion galaxies …”. And as Bertrand Russell commented, looking up into the night sky with its myriad points of light doesn’t make him think of or believe in an extraordinary creator but grasp more properly the insignificance of man while understanding better the power of imagination and the beauty and wonder of science and of exploring it to understand.
Of course God and religions are human constructs, ways of making sense of the world, of conquering the fear of its uncertainty and danger. And, as such, religions and other myths have value to the individual human condition. They may often also have utility in a community.
Where religions fail and become pernicious is when they get above themselves, when their proponents fail to recognise the categorical differences between religion and, say, science or government.
The essential difference between religion and science is that religion of necessity involves faith. If faith and observable facts conflict then faith wins. Science involves doubt. Its process is tentatively to propose a hypothesis to explain certain observable facts and to refine by observation and testing how well the hypothesis fits, duly modifying and refining it until it can be expressed as a firmer, but still tentative, theory. Critically, if the observable facts conflict with the theory it’s the theory which changes to accommodate the new observations.
It’s perfectly reasonable to be both religious and a scientist but it’s both vacuuous and dishonest to lose sight of scientific rigour in favour of religious dogma. This is why the likes of creationism and so-called intelligent design do nothing to advance our understanding of the world and are simply insane and dishonest delusions. And carried into the political arena this can cause enormous and real harm as incident after incident shows.
#36 .. I think you’re saying that most people who claim to be Christians are not, and its a shame that other people don’t recognize this. if so, I agree, and am saddened.
#37. I would like to make a semantic correction: churches exist because people inherently crave structure, order, and direction. the fact that they gather wealth and scare people is a byproduct. … still I’m glad to see someone point out the difference between what religions teach, and what religious institutions teach.
#41. That’s what I’m saying alright. But I wanted to stress that the worst thing is the fact that everyone easily recognises them as misguided and false but accepts the greatest falsehood, namely their claim to being Christian.
I call myself a Christian but nobody should take me for one unless I show myself to be one by my actions. It is not wrong for a Christian to be political but no Christian will ever crave power over others or force his will on others.
Interesting to follow some of the twists.
As #41 says”#36 .. I think you’re saying that most people who claim to be Christians are not, ………………..”
I read “most” as majority, i.e. more than 50%. So, according to this, more than 50% of so called Christians, are in fact NOT.
And where do they end up after death? They go to Hell and face eternal misery and damnation.
Interesting indeed how every individual Christian makes his belief the only right interpretation of the bible.
Could it possibly be that the ones you disagree with really got it right? Why not? Nothing of it can be proven, so who to say what’s “correct”?
Sitting on the fence watching Christians declare what’s the “correct” belief makes it nothing but sad.
I think it’s either deeply satisfying or satisfying enough for many people.
Of course there will be limits to what can be explained, but to patch the lack of a “total explanation” with a totally irrational and often evil religion, is not satisfactory to me.
And it’s an impossible solution as well, as you sooner or later have to continue your quest answering “where does God come from?”
RogerM, do you enjoy being a puppet?
#47
The “new trend” seems to be the realization of religion to be one of the most dangerous mindsets of mankind. Historically, nothing has caused more wars and misery than religion.
And this continues today as we speak. Sam Harris describes this quite well in his book “the End Of Faith”.
The idea of picturing Christianity as the “good doer of all times” is a wishful illusion without much foundation in reality.
Religion in general does not have any monopoly in “being good” towards those in needs. It’s sad that some people need a god to tell them to be helpful, rather than doing it out of plain helpfulness. A mindset I easily see has evolved in many social species.
As for Christianity, it’s puzzling to observe their “peace and love”-image. Read the Bible, and you’ll find God as a bloodthirsty one, demanding slaughter of millions of people. Not to mention justifying slavery.
#46
I can usually read between the lines, but please enlighten me since your post is a one liner….
#48 – “Historically, nothing has caused more wars and misery than religion.”
Wrong. Historically, nothing has caused more wars and misery than CHURCHES – that is, the political manipulators of people’s religious beliefs. All wars are political. All wars are to compete for POWER – resources, money. Therefore, all wars are started out of GREED. That greed can be satisfied by any means necessary. You can make your people think the others are non-human, inferior, whatever. Any excuse is good if you can convince most of your people to die in order to make you rich. Religion is just such an excuse. But it’s not the cause. Wars have always been fought over false pretenses, just as nowadays they are – remember, the US went to war over WMDs… False, they went to war to make a few people rich beyond all imagination. Remember how everything was before 9/11 – the Defense industry was in the doldrums, the Halliburton mafia was only filthy rich… They wanted MORE, so they started a war. Same thing for the past.
#47 – How’s that for ‘Dawkins is forgetting about the zoological evidence that shows animals to be innately superstitious.’??? I never read that anywhere, but I find that thought fascinating. Could you point me to any URL where I could read more about it? Thx.
Everything you do or say is controlled by your beliefs in an entity. You could choose to do to be compatible with successful societal organization because it is the logical thing to do, or you can do so under the threats of an unprovable entity. The former allows you to adjust and make any improvements to the system or to correct any flaws, the latter keeps you confined like hanging from a set of strings, inflexible beyond preset limits without the threat of your strings being cut or ultimately being tortured for all eternity.
Believing in god and an afterlife is ultimately detrimental to society as a whole because the incentive to repair flaws or strive for improvement is overshadowed by the better place waiting. A person will give up on something sooner if there’s a reward waiting upon his death regardless of an afforded effort. Extremists take that one step further.
My post #51 is in response to #49 Roger M
#51
Thanks for the response.
I’m a bit lost in the first part, especially the last sentence of it. I’m thinking a couple of full stops might have helped me 😉 (English is not my mother tongue.)
Anyway, the second part is crystal clear. And I believe it touches the core of both Harris’ and Dawkins’ motivation for their take “against” religion.
Some of us are worried for the future because we humans screwed it up with global warming, pollution and what not.
Others can’t wait for the end to come because they see the return of their savior in it.
This difference makes a tremendous difference when it comes to what to do and why.
Religion plays a role in our society in more ways than getting a high after a pray. In many ways it runs our country, be it stem cell research, what’s being taught in schools or whatever. It’s unfortunate, but the bad effects are not limited to the extremists.
Extremists are very good for describing part of the problem though. Why would anyone blow themselves up and take numerous innocent lives with them, if not religion were rewarding them with the afterlife, virgins, or sitting of a god’s lap?
But why would I be a puppet?
50. “#47 – How’s that for ‘Dawkins is forgetting about the zoological evidence that shows animals to be innately superstitious.’??? I never read that anywhere, but I find that thought fascinating. Could you point me to any URL where I could read more about it? Thx. ”
I posted my example once elsewhere so pardon me if others have read this.
And I’ll see if I can find a link at some point -I don’t even know if one exists – but for now let me paraphrase the behavioral experiment that was provided to our zoology class decades ago.
Start with birds in a cage. Below each food outlet is a bar that can be depressed to initiate a food offering. But the birds must stand on an electrified plate to enable themselves to depress the bar. That plate is usually powered off but can supply a short random zap to the birds, that they really, really don’t like. At first they can’t figure out when they are about to get juiced. But eventually they begin to incorrectly associate the jolt with something they are doing. Like, for instance, one bird might notice that if it stands on one foot, it doesn’t seem to get shocked. Another might make an association between the times it happens to turn around twice and not getting shocked. The shocks are random. That is the basis for superstition – when you associate one event completely erroneously with another. ie: there simply is no relationship. eg: such as believing that crossing a black cat’s path is connected to bad luck. Or rubbing a rabbit’s foot will cause your horse to win. Or praying to a deity is connected to good fortune.
I’ll see if I can find a reference somewhere.
RBG
48.
“The idea of picturing Christianity as the “good doer of all times” is a wishful illusion without much foundation in reality.
You’re absolutely correct. The key words being “of all times.” Otherwise they also do an almost unbelieveable amount of good around the world. I know you won’t insult my intelligence by making me dig up links to all this.
“It’s sad that some people need a god to tell them to be helpful, rather than doing it out of plain helpfulness.”
Very sad. But thank, uh, God – the rest of us get to benefit from all these good deeds however they are motivated. I truly don’t believe the same number of atheists would be so inclined. After all, no one is offering them anything near as good as heaven in return.
“Read the Bible, and you’ll find God as a bloodthirsty one, demanding slaughter of millions of people. Not to mention justifying slavery.”
I’ll bet you 99.9% of those who follow the Bible don’t quite agree with your interpretation however plain it might be to read.
“The “new trend” seems to be the realization of religion to be one of the most dangerous mindsets of mankind. Historically, nothing has caused more wars and misery than religion.”
Those last two quotes are a bit unnerving because they suggest the solution might be by some to get the religious-types first.
RBG
Um, Roger…this is embarrassing… I originally got you mixed up with RGB. It’s those darm long posts. My eyes got crossed. You and I think alike on this subject. So have a good laugh at me, both of you.
(I never figured out how to add a smiley face)
The thing about there being atheists all around me that actually scares me almost as much as fanatical religious-types is that if an atheist is not the humanist variety – and there is nothing that says they will be – they should have no problem killing whomever they like if it suits them and it looks like they could get away with it. There’s no higher judgement waiting for them. I don’t think it matters much whether you die from an Islamic terrorist or an atheist who kills because it just makes economic or other sense to do so.
RBG
#56
Hey JimR. I kinda knew that, no harm done. And “;)” makes 😉
And to #57 RGB
I know people cherry pick the parts they want to read and “believe” in from the Bible. I guess it’s a reason that all the bloody stories are hardly ever mentioned in any Christian service. But they are there, and you better believe them if you take your god seriously. (You know the consequences if you don’t.)
Your view of atheism is nothing less horrendous than the Bible you seem to believe in.
As opposed to your belief in a everlasting afterlife, atheists know of this life only. That’s why I evaluate life in general as very very very precious. And that’s why I believe atheists are among the most peaceful people you can come across.
So rest assured; atheists love life and won’t go nuts just because they don’t have any god hanging over them threatening them with everlasting torture and your god knows what if they don’t “behave”.
But your idea give me quite an insight of what Christians think though. It’s scary, and we have lots of “incidents” to back that scary thought. Just read up on the Inquisition.
No higher judgment = Senseless killings? Give me a break! Or are you saying prisons are filled with atheist only?
I am also a little annoyed of Christians’ egocentric view of the world. Lots of other people not connected to Christianity does a lot of great and admirable work. And without prayers. Doctors without borders, Red Cross, UN institutions, and many many other give unconditional aid. They do it out of genuine humanism. Not because “God told them to”.
59. I see what you mean about cherry picking what you read. You just did that.
First I was writing nothing of what good others do in this world – just what a lot of Christians and other religious people do that’s good. Now I’m going to make you write what seems impossible for you to acknowledge. Forget all the religious wars and forget whether religious people do good things because they may selfishly get something like money or points for heaven or as an insidious way to indoctrinate or whatever. Forget all those for a minute and let me “hear” you simply acknowledge that in terms of building schools, hospitals, needed infrastructure, famine-relief and generally making life better for the less fortunate in our world, religious people do a fabulous and profound job and who’s works are welcomed the world over. Do that and then tell me how many lives religious people have saved through these works versus those taken for the greater glory of God. I’m listening with my eyes.
A true atheist who has not been recruited into the humanist movement has no reason not to kill others if it suits them, assuming there are no repercussions. True or not true? It’s right here in the Rules of Being An Atheist. Don’t cherry pick now. Don’t ignore the dilemma.
Consider how many religious people there are in this world. Now assume, for argument’s sake, they were all atheists. No doubt, these folks would be very careful with their lives knowing they get one shot then it’s over. So it seems reasonable that they would not want to get killed in a war. But the flip-side of this logic – that you work hard to ignore or are just oblivious to – is they shouldn’t give a hoot who else gets killed as long as it isn’t themselves. You can’t have the first hypothetical situation without the other.
The only thing that prevents atheists from doing just about whatever they want is their own moral constitution – nothing else. If everyone converted to atheism tomorrow, do you think the world would suddenly be populated by Utopian humanists? Or do you think the world would continue to be populated by people exhibiting more or less the same human traits they’ve shown for the last few million years?
And now ask yourself which you would rather be surrounded by: billions of people who believe God is going to get them if they screw up or billions of atheists who are going to behave themselves because… well, because atheists are just swell folks.
I can’t say for sure but I submit to you that the atheist humanists of this world tend – perhaps need – to be very educated and reasonably well off. Fix those things in this world and we’ll talk again.
RBG
Correction: 59 for 58
“59. I see what you mean about cherry picking what you read. You just did that.”
Well, if I was a believer of a god’s words, like the Bible claims, I’d certainly expect everything in it to be valid and true. I would expect any cherry I’d pick to be a good representation for that god. How else could you know what to take literally and what to say “Nah, that stuff was written for those day’s audience and doesn’t count anymore.” How can you not allow me to choose whatever part of the Bible I’d like, and scrutinize it in a critical light?
On the other hand, Christians should accept the whole Bible as it is, and be ready to defend it as the truth. Not just pick “Jesus loves you” and skip the darker parts.
“First I was writing nothing of what good others do in this world – just what a lot of Christians and other religious people do that’s good.”
OK, you’re right. Numerous. But at a cost. Due to their motivation, the good deeds include their prayers, their blessings, their god. And that’s an intrusion on the “helped people’s” sovereignty unless they already share the giver’s faith. I know the Bible tells to get out there and make all people disciples of Christianity, and that’s an attitude I can’t support.
“……Do that and then tell me how many lives religious people have saved through these works versus those taken for the greater glory of God. I’m listening with my eyes.”
I’m sorry, but I believe that on a scale, the bad outnumbers by far the good. Religious murders/wars are going on as we speak, so even by “forgetting the past” Christianity is in bad shape.
But of course, Miss Lisa or whoever that delivers food to the hungry on the corner, does a great job.
“A true atheist who has not been recruited into the humanist movement has no reason not to kill others if it suits them, assuming there are no repercussions. True or not true? It’s right here in the Rules of Being An Atheist. Don’t cherry pick now. Don’t ignore the dilemma.”
Please. That’s ridiculous. The modern man has been around for at least 130.000 years, and you say that’s because your god has prevented them extinguishing each other by telling them they’d be damned in Hell if they did? You believe this? And I suppose a mother’s instinct protecting and nurture her baby is also due to this god of yours? You don’t believe that, do you? Or maybe you’re among those who believe everything was “created” six thousand years ago….
And what’s “a true atheist”? And what is “It’s right here in the Rules of Being An Atheist.”? Never heard of that one. Please enlighten me.
As far as I think, atheists are the originals. Before the gods were invented.
“………… But the flip-side of this logic – that you work hard to ignore or are just oblivious to – is they shouldn’t give a hoot who else gets killed as long as it isn’t themselves. You can’t have the first hypothetical situation without the other.”
Another ridiculous idea of yours. Social animals, like ourselves, don’t walk around killing others just for the heck of it. This is a mindset I thank evolution for. As a matter of fact, if there was some nut case in between, it would be such an erroneous behavior that he would be eliminated by the large group. Again, humans are social creatures. Study any social animal, and you’ll find this good feature. It’s an evolutionary result. It’s nothing “Utopian” about it at all.
Your vision that it’s only dogmas like the ten commandments that prevent people from stealing, murdering, whatever… is scary to say it least. Again; how could mankind survive before someone (God/humans whoever) wrote your Bible? It’s a very common, but naive way of thinking, that only a god can keep the world from collapsing.
“And now ask yourself which you would rather be surrounded by: billions of people who believe God is going to get them if they screw up or billions of atheists who are going to behave themselves because… well, because atheists are just swell folks.”
Actually, I think most people are perfectly OK. I’ve met christians, muslims, agnostics and many other flavors of mindsets, and they have been OK. Because, in the dept of their mind, they’ve all been humans. Social animals with perfectly evolved values that makes them ,…. well, just nice. There is no hokus pokus about it.
“I can’t say for sure but I submit to you that the atheist humanists of this world tend – perhaps need – to be very educated and reasonably well off. Fix those things in this world and we’ll talk again.”
I totally disagree. “Good people” don’t need to be highly educated or overly intelligent. The values are deeply rooted in our genes. Don’t underestimate the great people of the Earth that varies from our western picture of an ideal, eh, education.
In my opinion, you just insulted a great number of people who differs from you.
Anyway, it’s been interesting. And I thank you for your thoughts. We don’t agree in much. But I’m sure if we met, we would probably get along pretty well 😉
61. The problem with your argument re the Bible, is that most Bible scholars do not for a second take the Bible completely literally. The words are allegories or require reference to the original meanings in Hebrew. Most of which can only be interpreted by the “Qualified.” That is exactly why there are so many interpretations. Frustrating? Sure. But more importantly, as I mentioned before, you can disregard what you think the meaning of the Bible is because all that matters is what Bible-readers tell you they believe the meanings to be. And you don’t need a poll to tell you that doesn’t include condoning slavery.
“But of course, Miss Lisa or whoever that delivers food to the hungry on the corner, does a great job.”
Nice try.
Instead, how about Loma Linda University Medical Center does a great job. (They’re the folks that first transplanted a baboon’s heart into a baby.)
Yearly: 33,000 inpatients and serves roughly half a million outpatients.
Just one religious-oriented hospital, in just one city, from one Christian denomination, of one particular religion. http://www.llu.edu/llumc/
Now show me even one Atheist Piggy Medical Center. How about even an atheist organization sponsored lemonade stand?
“modern man has been around for at least 130.000 years.”
Read carefully – I said kill without repercussions and, with reasons. (Though hypothetically without.) In any case, I’m strictly referring to atheists because of the implications of their particular philosophy. Your mother example is irrelevant. Besides we know even people of religion get rid of baby girls all the time. That doesn’t invalidate my argument as I illustrate below. I don’t know what it does for yours.
What I am calling a “true” atheist are atheists who don’t follow the humanist dogma. Not a great term but, you know, the pure unadulterated breed of atheist. My “Atheist Rules” being the obvious logical conclusion that one atheist can kill another person without any hesitation if it suits (as outlined previously).
“Social animals, like ourselves, don’t walk around killing others just for the heck of it.”
Unless you’re guys named Loeb & Leopold who agreed with Friedrich Nietzsche’s criticism of moral codes, and believed that legal obligations did not apply to those who approached “the superman.” Just where do kids get their ideas these days?
Other than people interested in killing as an intellectual exercise, people kill if there is enough reason to do so. This, of course, includes religious people. But the same logic train you want them to ride to become atheist is the same intellectual course that must further bring them to the conclusion that when you kill, and nobody knows about it, it really doesn’t matter – there is no accountability. Your mistaken assumption is that atheists will be able to prevent this rare behavior through a morality which somehow is bestowed upon themselves through the ether by way of, what, osmosis? evolution? Wishful thought.
Now religious people would supposedly have the exact same genetic goodness you speak of. And if not that, some kind of similar personal moral compass. But they also have the further motivator of life-long teachings and belief that a real, actual God directs their lives. Statistically, that would have to make a difference. You would have it that religious people willingly die in a war as directed by their God – but then, somehow, are less interested in all the other rules imposed upon them. Not to mention most of the fun happens in after-life if you qualify on the skill-testing question.
I use murder as my example because it is so stark, but substitute the whole cross-section of man-helping-man behaviors. I’m not talking in absolutes (which appears to be the confusing thing here for you) but in amounts relative to a hypothetical atheistic world. Which is only a theoretical fantasy at this time, but I’m sure you’d gladly impose upon us.
Something like the Marxist-Leninist social experiment that was also all based on and moderated by evolutionary genetics, I take it. In fact, your whole atheist movement smacks of the same desperate need for a similar Utopia. With the same kind of continuous enforcements needed to make it artificially happen.
And finally, who said anything about intelligence? Only you did. I referred only that the route to atheism likely requiring education and the comfort of being somewhat well-off. See, it helps in the chi-chi living rooms of atheistic discussion.
I have no doubt we’d get along fine.
RBG
Although Dawkins reuses Russell’s teapot argument, he is still
correct. It’s about time someone starts standing up
to plainly silly religious ideas and not giving extra politeness to
religion just because it is religion.