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)
(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.