somebody explain whats actually wrong with nu media savvy militant atheism espoused by dawkins et al

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (397 of them)
HE CITED EXAMPLES, PEOPLE, EXAMPLES!

remy bean (bean), Saturday, 30 December 2006 16:34 (seventeen years ago) link

Copernicus worked for most of his life at the Collegiate Church of the Holy Cross in Breslau - gosh, I wonder who funded that institution and paid for his studies. And who had a library where he would discover the heliocentric implications of Plato and Cicero...

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 30 December 2006 16:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Galileo - devout Roman Catholic, fan of St. Augustine...

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 30 December 2006 16:37 (seventeen years ago) link

Kepler = Lutheran theology student

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 30 December 2006 16:38 (seventeen years ago) link

Of course patronage (royal or church-based) was the main system of support for research and development for scholars and artists; autonomy in this regard did not exist until the 19th and 20th century, although many churches and kings did just let the researchers get on with it.

suzy artskooldisko (suzy artskooldisko), Saturday, 30 December 2006 17:02 (seventeen years ago) link

well you might as well call religion the source of democracy too, then, since religious authority was bound up with government for approximately 5,000 years or whatever. and religion is obviously the source of art too! or you could make the much more reasonable observation that all of these things -- the search for knowledge about the world and our place in it, the establishment of social order, the pursuit of philosophy, art, etc. -- are all features that have co-existed in various proportions in more or less every human civilization. to ascribe any or all of it to "religion" -- to give religion credit for science, or art, or government -- is ridiculous. it's pulling one thing out of a matrix and saying "without this, none of the rest of it happens" -- when actually all of it happens together. the whole idea of separating out these various spheres into discrete camps -- religion here, science there, government over here -- is a relatively recent development. so recent that it hasn't even happened yet in some societies. saying that "religion" is somehow the causal element in the whole thing is just a fallacy.

tipsy mothra (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 30 December 2006 18:05 (seventeen years ago) link

but that's one of the reasons religion is such a powerful and interesting force - its there at the origins of all the major institutions: art, language/symbol systems, social organization, as well as science. To make the "religion is the root of all evil" argument that Dawkins does requires that all of religion's contributions to civilization be discounted while still holding it accountable for the wrongs committed in its name. This a deep internal contradiction in Dawkins' condemnation of religion - to blame it for one set of things while refusing to give it credit for others.

I mean essentially I agree with the more holistic worldview you describe - where all of these elements exist and develop together - but Dawkins' argument attempts to separate religion out of this matrix and blame it for society's ills, which is what I have a problem with. Its like when atheists get all excited about blaming religion as the source of all wars throughout history or some such bullshit, its just myopic and simplistic and innacurate.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 30 December 2006 20:08 (seventeen years ago) link

(still, this is something of a diversion - I think the real issue with Dawkins is one of language and an inability to correctly define terms)

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 30 December 2006 20:13 (seventeen years ago) link

the search for knowledge about the world and our place in it

Formerly known as "religion".

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Saturday, 30 December 2006 22:07 (seventeen years ago) link

religion is one aspect of that search. science, philosophy and art are others, like i said. they co-exist, and have been historically intertwined in complicated ways, but it's not like we "invented" religion and then from it drew science and art. but i'm not disagreeing with shaky mo on dawkins' reductiveness. broad statements about the good or evil of religion are as useless as similar statements about science (or art, for that matter).

tipsy mothra (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 30 December 2006 22:15 (seventeen years ago) link

my buddy forwarded this L.A. Times op-ed from Sam Harris out around on the day before Christmas:

10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheism

kingfish in absentia (kingfish), Sunday, 31 December 2006 08:29 (seventeen years ago) link

there are some very interesting posts on this thread and i'm sorry i missed most of it as it was happening. i was too busy celebrating this silly winter festival in my own non-believing way.

for me, it's pretty simple: atheists getting "militant" on everybody's ass is spectacularly unhelpful. what dawkins and others are doing - and they really don't seem to realise the irony - is repositioning "atheism" as not just a lack of belief but as a belief system in itself: ie "i identify myself as a devout non-believer, and will angrily spout the following atheist dogma".

jesus christ bloody hell for god's sake ... er, look, fellow atheists. it's not difficult. we're meant to be the tolerant ones, remember?

grimly fiendish (simon), Sunday, 31 December 2006 15:39 (seventeen years ago) link

kingfish there are so many inaccurate generalizations and assumptions in that op-ed... I couldn't even get past point 3. (one of my personal faves is that an atheist by definition has "read the books" - meaning holy texts - this is hardly ever true in my personal experience. shit, half the ostensibly religious people I know haven't actually read the books)

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Sunday, 31 December 2006 16:58 (seventeen years ago) link

I mean come on, this: "it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself" - that is fucking Mysticism 101 right there. Define yr terms people.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Sunday, 31 December 2006 17:00 (seventeen years ago) link

"time": a theoretical concept invented by humans in a (pretty damn good) attempt to rationalise something big and terrifying.

"god": a theoretical concept invented by humans in a (pretty flawed) attempt to etc etc.

"the internet": an etc etc etc.

grimly fiendish (simon), Sunday, 31 December 2006 17:51 (seventeen years ago) link

eeth, i know fundies don't think of themselves as reacting to the capitalist overturning of virtually every previous social and civic bond that has ever existed, but if you want us to all talk about this from WITHIN their mindset, well, actually, that would make a pretty hilarious thread. (for a second or two)

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Sunday, 31 December 2006 18:51 (seventeen years ago) link

somewhere or other on my reading list

Maria e (Maria), Sunday, 31 December 2006 19:47 (seventeen years ago) link

eeth you are really down with the whole "opiate of the masses" thing aren't you?

maybe you'd like it better in RUSSIA where THEY DON'T HAVE GOD

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Sunday, 31 December 2006 19:58 (seventeen years ago) link

(they do have pepsi though, i think)

happy new year you theocrazies

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Sunday, 31 December 2006 20:03 (seventeen years ago) link

er, look, fellow atheists. it's not difficult. we're meant to be the tolerant ones, remember?

i thought agnostics were the tolerant ones. the perceived dogmatism of atheists is what keeps some of us agnostic.

tipsy mothra (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 31 December 2006 21:00 (seventeen years ago) link

Here's a guy with a truly savvy take on all this:

http://salon.com/books/int/2007/01/02/numbers/print.html

"Q: Now, one thing I find curious is your own position in this debate. Your book "The Creationists" is generally acknowledged to be the history of creationism. You've also been very upfront about your own lack of religious belief. Yet, as far as I can tell, you seem to be held in high regard both by creationists and by scientists, which -- I have to say -- is a neat trick. How have you managed this?

A: Unlike many people, I haven't gone out of my way to attack or ridicule critics of evolution. I know some of the people I've written about. They're good people. I know it's not because they're stupid that they are creationists. I'm talking about all my family, too, who are still creationists. So that easy explanation that so many anti-creationists use -- that they're just illiterate hillbillies -- doesn't have any appeal to me, although I'm quite happy to admit that there are some really stupid creationists. "

schwantz (schwantz), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:05 (seventeen years ago) link

good interview

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:25 (seventeen years ago) link

I saw this book in the bookstore yesterday. It looks kind of interesting:

The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God (Hardcover)
by Carl Sagan

http://www.amazon.com/Varieties-Scientific-Experience-Personal-Search/dp/1594201072/sr=8-1/qid=1167767176/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-9541001-0413728?ie=UTF8&s=books

o. nate (o. nate), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:49 (seventeen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.