Richard Dawkins: Anti-spiritual or Anti-superstitious?

[Megan]

Hi David1. What I'm trying to foster is fruitful discussion.

Since the science-relgion debate is heating up to such a fever pitch in the world it seems to me that the only solution is "to carry the religious discussion forward," in the words of Dr. Mary Evelyn Tucker.

I'm not making Dawkins wrong, or you wrong. I'm not making these kids wrong:

BlasphemyChallenge.com : "The Blasphemy Challenge" Rewards Participants for Demonstrating Non- Belief on YouTube.

Philadelphia -- December 14, 2006. The Rational Response Squad has launched a $25,000 campaign to entice young people to publicly renounce any belief in the sky God of Christianity.

Called "The Blasphemy Challenge," this campaign encourages participants to commit what Christian doctrine calls the only unforgivable sin -- blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (The "Holy Spirit" is an invisible ghost who Christians believe dwells on Earth as God's representative.)

Participants who videotape their blasphemy and upload it to YouTube will receive a free DVD of the hit documentary THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE, which normally sells for $24.98. Beyond Belief Media, the distributor of THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE, has donated 1001 DVDs to the Rational Response Squad for The Blasphemy Challenge.

More than 160 participants have already blasphemed the Holy Spirit and earned free DVDs during the pre-launch phase of the Blasphemy Challenge. Their videos can be viewed at: YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

While anyone can participate in The Blasphemy Challenge, the Rational Response Squad is focused on reaching a young demographic. To publicize The Blasphemy Challenge to young people, today the Rational Response Squad begins an online advertising campaign focused on 25 sites popular with teens such as Xanga, Friendster, Boy Scout Trail, Tiger Beat, Teen Magazine, YM, CosmoGirl! and Seventeen.

RichardDawkins.net - The Official Richard Dawkins Website

I just think it's time to get centered and talk about these things from the most resourceful state we can manage.

WDYT?

[jamasiel]

While it has produced interesting discussions like this thread, the positing by Dawkins and "The New Atheists" (term from the Wired article featuring him and other associates) of a "world without religion" seems pointless - religion will always be with us. What shall we then do?
This is not a statement on what I believe is "true" or what my religion or spirituality might be - it's observing the world. Yes, we know religion has been the excuse for countless terrible things throughout history and even before - what shall we then do? Yes, it also provides an excuse to remain ignorant of science, to be intolerant, to kill and oppress - what shall we then do?

[Megan]

We shall discuss and continue to discuss from as resourceful an inner position as we can muster. There is no other choice, that I can see.

I believe this is an evolutionary issue.

[dor]

Originally Posted by jamasiel

While it has produced interesting discussions like this thread, the positing by Dawkins and "The New Atheists" (term from the Wired article featuring him and other associates) of a "world without religion" seems pointless - religion will always be with us. What shall we then do?
This is not a statement on what I believe is "true" or what my religion or spirituality might be - it's observing the world. Yes, we know religion has been the excuse for countless terrible things throughout history and even before - what shall we then do? Yes, it also provides an excuse to remain ignorant of science, to be intolerant, to kill and oppress - what shall we then do?

- 'equality' or the concept of it has been used to be intolerant, kill and opress
- science has been used as an excuse to remain ignorant, to kill, to opress. - Dawkins is a self-evident example of a 'scientist ' being actively ignorant
- governments, and even democracy in particular have been used to kill, opress and be intolerant - should we do away with government? democracy? science?

[Shaden]

'Dawkins is a self-evident example of a 'scientist ' being actively ignorant'

Really, ignorant of what?

(I'm not actually pro-religious or pro-Dawkins. Just curious that's all )

[dor]

Originally Posted by Shaden

'Dawkins is a self-evident example of a 'scientist ' being actively ignorant'

Really, ignorant of what?

(I'm not actually pro-religious or pro-Dawkins. Just curious that's all )

geo-political conflicts - Richard Dawkins: Anti-spiritual or Anti-superstitious?
He makes the world fit into his pet theory that religion is "root of all evil" ...he honestly! says there would be no indo-paksitan conflict or no northern ireland troubles but for religion !?!
also, his theories about natural selection /evolution describing all development are widely disputed and, well, largely faith-based.

[Megan]

By dor Today 01:55 PM

...also, his theories about natural selection /evolution describing all development are widely disputed and, well, largely faith-based.

Yes, I think he's going to have to eat his reductionist hat one of these days. Or not...I think he's 65 and that's pretty old to still have your heels dug in.

But eventually, I think, the staggering amount of complexity in the cosmos is going to force biology to adopt some sort of strong anthropic principle.

There will simply not wind up being enough time since the earth formed for all the complexity to have evolved from random chance and natural selection. The question is already being asked.

I think the Intelligent Design movement is not worthy of respect for a number of reasons though.

Stuart Kauffman and others are doing work on self-organizing systems that some find encouraging.

Hope your trip went well, dor--experience any synchronicities?

[dor]

actually, though i enjoyed it immensely i felt i was 'out of synch' with people - but very much in synch with nature, finding the right spot at the right time to draw, paint or photograph


anyway, regarding dawkins, yes i agree - the problem with this polarization is that Dawkins followers automatically knee-jerk pigeon hole anyone who doubts evolution as doing it because of rejection of science...
when there are many people, scientists, atheists included, that don't believe evolution. I don't believe it for scientific, not theistic reasons- I don't doubt natural selection, evolution on a microscale but have my doubts about it being the be all and end all life force.

The way dawkins and his followers speak about evolution sounds just as cultish, narrow minded and idealogy-over-realty driven as the claim the fundies are.

[Megan]

By dor, Today 10:16 PM

...there are many people, scientists, atheists included, that don't believe evolution. I don't believe it for scientific, not theistic reasons- I don't doubt natural selection, evolution on a microscale but have my doubts about it being the be all and end all life force.

If you have the time and inclination (no hurry) I would be interested in hearing you outline your objections to evolution briefly, or at length.

Evolution is my working hypothesis right now, but I don't believe life can be accounted for by natural selection and random mutation. And that doesn't even touch the unfathomable leap of abiogenesis.

I'm thinking the cosmos has a strong anthropic principle built in, IOW, it favors the production of life overall. I think the cosmos is teleological, has an end in mind and that end is life and consciousness. I think consciousness is the remedy for entropy. I also think consciousness is the matrix of the cosmos, i.e., is "fundamental."

I don't think you can get to life-as-we-know-it with Dawkins' mechanisms. Do you remember the "statue waving" scenario in The Blind Watchmaker? I knew he was a desperate man when I read that. But I find his books enjoyable--he's very intelligent and a good writer, but definitely...religious, I agree.

Anyway, I'm busy for a few days. See ya later.

[jamasiel]

Originally Posted by dor

- 'equality' or the concept of it has been used to be intolerant, kill and opress
- science has been used as an excuse to remain ignorant, to kill, to opress. - Dawkins is a self-evident example of a 'scientist ' being actively ignorant
- governments, and even democracy in particular have been used to kill, opress and be intolerant - should we do away with government? democracy? science?

You hit the nail on the head here!

[Shaden]

Thanks for the reply dor

I believe in neither creationism or evolution, finding them both as far-fetched and extreme as each other. However I dislike Religions ability to politically and morally squash the surrounding population.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Shaden

Thanks for the reply dor

However I dislike Religions ability to politically and morally squash the surrounding population.

as i have alluded to a few posts up, the same can be said for many other things.
and science is probably one of the worst and highly politicized because it has the veneer of objectivity behind it.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Shaden

I believe in neither creationism or evolution, finding them both as far-fetched and extreme as each other.

How about gravity? That a pretty far-fetched theory, as well. Boy, those scientists are really manipulating us with that one!

[Shaden]

How about gravity? That a pretty far-fetched theory, as well. Boy, those scientists are really manipulating us with that one!

Oooo, debate time :P

Gravity isn't far-fetched because it's happening in front of us right this second. I drop something - it falls, under normal conditions. Evolutions a little different however - it happens over a period of extensive time and we as human beings cannot see it happening right in front of our eyes. It needs a certain amount of faith to believe, such as the manner that a mysterious deity does.

as i have alluded to a few posts up, the same can be said for many other things.
and science is probably one of the worst and highly politicized because it has the veneer of objectivity behind it.

Do you have any examples of such occurences. Religion condones provision of condoms to an AIDs ravaged continent merely because of some far-fetched proclomations by a non-provable good and uses its political weight to prevent such provision. That to me is evil.

I'm not writing of science completely - just interested in some examples of such occurences within the scientific frame is all.

Thanks

[dor]

Originally Posted by Shaden

Oooo, debate time :P

Do you have any examples of such occurences. Religion condones provision of condoms to an AIDs ravaged continent merely because of some far-fetched proclomations by a non-provable good and uses its political weight to prevent such provision. That to me is evil.

I'm not writing of science completely - just interested in some examples of such occurences within the scientific frame is all.

Thanks

Stephen Jay Gould: lied and tried to suppress E.O. Wilsons work - smeared him, called him a racist.
Franz Boas: lied about skull shape - this lie created the 'tabula rasa' movement that still dominates anthropology and social sciences today.
Carl Sagan: lied and distorted history in Cosmos to fit his own political agenda.
Freud: a complete fraud -no scientific basis for any of his theories, yet freudian thinking still dominates social discourse - it is the superstition of modern man. 'oh you said this, you have a so and so complex'

Boas and Gould were both marxists and did it for political reasons.

Global warming, and the cult thereof. environmentalism as a 'new religion' complete with 'judgment day' if we don't 'repent'
Greenpeace: during the 80s claimed eastern block countries were less polluted than capitalists ones - this of course was a big lie because EE countries were still burning soft coal.

Regarding AIDs; gay advocacy groups try to supress the high promiscuity of homosexuals, claim AIDs is an epdemic yet in turn refuse quaranttines and make it illegal for doctors to report cases.

I could spend all day with examples.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Shaden

Gravity isn't far-fetched because it's happening in front of us right this second. I drop something - it falls, under normal conditions. Evolutions a little different however - it happens over a period of extensive time and we as human beings cannot see it happening right in front of our eyes. It needs a certain amount of faith to believe, such as the manner that a mysterious deity does.

Really, Shaden? Without gravity, matter would not have coalesced into masses and life would not exist. Gravitation is also responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; the Moon in its orbit around the Earth; the formation of tides; and various other natural phenomena that we observe. Are you able to see that gravity happening, right in front of you?

Just as one can see the effects of gravity right in front of your eyes, one can also see the effects of evolution. You would have to take some scientist's word for it that there's a attracting force at work that includes but goes beyond an apple falling from a tree to the ground. Since they're both faith-based, why believe in gravity if you don't believe in evolution?

[ElizaJ]

I feel quite sorry for Mr. Dawkins, because I am intimately familiar with people who are able to: 1) travel the Astral plane; 2) communicate with others around the globe via the Astral plane; 3) able to communicate with others via telepathy. And this is all done with the use of Spirit. But, the Supreme Being allows everyone to believe whatever they wish to believe thus allowing them to create their own reality, until such point in time when the Supreme Being will no longer tolerate any nonsense from anyone.

BTW, the Universe is a mish-mash of creation and evolution.

[Shaden]

Really, Shaden? Without gravity, matter would not have coalesced into masses and life would not exist. Gravitation is also responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; the Moon in its orbit around the Earth; the formation of tides; and various other natural phenomena that we observe. Are you able to see that gravity happening, right in front of you?

Just as one can see the effects of gravity right in front of your eyes, one can also see the effects of evolution. You would have to take some scientist's word for it that there's a attracting force at work that includes but goes beyond an apple falling from a tree to the ground. Since they're both faith-based, why believe in gravity if you don't believe in evolution?

Are there actually any examples of evolution occuring to the noticeable degree of dropping an object on the floor?

[Megan]

By ElizaJ, 02-08-2007 02:13 PM

But, the Supreme Being allows everyone to believe whatever they wish to believe thus allowing them to create their own reality, until such point in time when the Supreme Being will no longer tolerate any nonsense from anyone.

Oh? What happens then?

[Shaden]

Oh? What happens then?

Armageddon - in other words Australian for "I'm a getting outa ere" (Thank You Izzard you God!)

[Megan]

Shaden, ElizaJ sounded vaguely Rosicrucian to me. Probably I'm the one who is vague about the Rosicrucians, but I seem to recall that they travel hither and thither in the night seasons to render aid where needed, clad only in their ethereal bodies. But I didn't know they had an Armageddon scenario.

I've obviously made a lot of assumptions about ElizaJ's outlook, which only she can clarify/verify. I just don't recall hearing anyone alluding to astral travel and God losing patience and zapping us in the same context before.

Armageddon in 'American' is "We're gonna fight to the last man standing."

Anyway, I found ElizaJ's statement intriguing: the Supreme Being is tolerant "until such point in time when the Supreme Being will no longer tolerate any nonsense from anyone."

Remind you of any parents you have known and loved?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Megan

Shaden, ElizaJ sounded vaguely Rosicrucian to me. Probably I'm the one who is vague about the Rosicrucians, but I seem to recall that they travel hither and thither in the night seasons to render aid where needed, clad only in their ethereal bodies. But I didn't know they had an Armageddon scenario.

steering back on topic
as one of Dawkin's atheist critics pointed out, the 'religion' of environmentalism has an Armageddon scenario - which is not scientifically based (as is much of the environmentalist movement) and that's one of the criticisms of him- he ignores all manner of other forms of irrationality and idealogy driven distortion , including his own.....

[Megan]

...but, in my defense, I think the Armageddon scenario is large part of why atheists are, well, atheists. I mean...who needs this stuff? And how do Christians disengage from it?

OTOH, point taken again about the Armageddon scenario embedded in the Global Warming brouhaha.

But, OTOH, where are you getting your information--hasn't it been admitted that the Bush administration messed with the environmental information?

But, OTOH...oh never mind...I could do this forever.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Megan

...but, in my defense, I think the Armageddon scenario is large part of why atheists are, well, atheists.

Hey there. I think most atheists are atheists because they believe there is no god, not because we're put off by any the particulars of the fiction.

Here's a new piece of writty from my pal Richard that I thought might interest you folks:

Richard Dawkins, You're Wrong to Call Me Dogmatic

[Megan]

...but, in my defense, I think the Armageddon scenario is a large part of why lots of atheists are, well, [dor will love this] fulminating atheists.

Not saying that includes present company, you understand, but read the Net if you want to see lots of fulminating atheists. The good doctor has been known to work up a good head of fulminating steam at times.





But, yeah, Happy Darwin day!

[Angela]

I'm going to remember that for next New Years: "Fulminate in 2008!"

Still, speaking for myself, Danger Man, and a few other atheists I know, the fulmination is merely a culmination of the irritation that explodes forth after years of what feels like the oppression of full self-expression. Like a shaken-up bottle of coke.

The niggling little details, like armegeddon, virgin birth, Jesus comes out of the cave and if he sees his shadow we get six more weeks of winter, if you reveal your confession will it come true, etc. --- those are just fuel for the fire.

We're hot, passionate people, us naturalists.

[Angela]

p.s., I think most scientists agree that it's likely that the human race will die out long before the universe comes to an end. Armageddon, global warning, whatever you call it, we won't last forever. Species-wise.

Not that I'd like to see that eventuality hastened, mind you.

[Megan]

By Angela

Still, speaking for myself, Danger Man, and a few other atheists I know, the fulmination is merely a culmination of the irritation that explodes forth after years of what feels like the oppression of full self-expression. Like a shaken-up bottle of coke.

Shaken bottles of coke sure do fulminate don't they?

My impression is that lots of people are atheists who wouldn't trouble themselves to identify themselves that way if they hadn't been run roughshod over by religion.

I also have the impression that lots of those people are former Catholics.

I could be wrong, of course.

[Megan]

By Angela

p.s., I think most scientists agree that it's likely that the human race will die out long before the universe comes to an end. Armageddon, global warning, whatever you call it, we won't last forever. Species-wise.

Not that I'd like to see that eventuality hastened, mind you.

Why not believe that evolution will continue to produce more depth of information? It has continued to do so, so far.

[Angela]

Yeah, you got me and Danger Man pegged. Catholicism has plenty of good material for denigrating, alright (Denigrate in 2008!) and then there's those incredibly creepy jesus-over-the-headboard-crying-real-ruby-tears. 's. And the weddings! They go on for-eeeee-vvvveerrrrrr. and all the catholic homes when I was a kid, they never had a comfortable place to lounge around and read page 29 of the godfather. all the chairs were hard and upright to discourage impure thoughts and deeds. Thank god my dad was an atheist and never tried to inhibit our consumption of smut while laying prone.

Despite the riches of roughshoddities, still I believe they're not what make an atheist an atheist. I think many people are coming out with a bullet simply because it's kind of the zeitgeist -- there has been a culture-wide coke-can shaking, and the tab top was pulled by Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett last Fall. (oooh, do you think it's a coincidence that it was "Fall"?) It's possible that us recovering catholics are the most vocal and fulminatious about "coming out" because we are trained from birth to be drama queens. Are you kidding? Churchtime is Showtime! Blood, pain, sacrifice, and real ruby tears.