Is Dawkins out of line here?

[harvey1]

Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying:

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

Is Dawkins just an intolerant person, or is he ahead of his time in seeing the need to try and squelch religion?

[QED]

1John2_26 -- you have your position all staked-out; over and over again you tell us that 0 and 0 can't make anything but 0 and that a watch can't be made blindfold. But these are not real arguments -- only icons for your beliefs. Try dividing 0 by 0 and see what you get. Try telling us which artifacts were designed by sighted men and which were not. Admittedly it's a little more complicated than that, but here's the rub; you have to go considerably deeper into these subjects than you do. Superficially the world does indeed appear to be the way you see it, just as the world looked flat and the Sun seemed to revolve around the Earth.

[kiwimac]

You will understand that as a Priest I have a certain set of beliefs. But I have arrived at these beliefs through contemplation, out of long, hard thought and out of times spent trying to work out the why of the universe.

Richard Dawkins is saying something that if a Christian were to say it about a Hindu (for example) folk would consider perilously close to hate speech and rightly so because it is nothing more or less than stereotyping of the most odious kind.

Kiwimac

Priest and Theologian

[Dion]

Richard Dawkins is saying something that if a Christian were to say it about a Hindu (for example) folk would consider perilously close to hate speech and rightly so because it is nothing more or less than stereotyping of the most odious kind.

Would you please point out where Richard Dawkins says something that is untrue?

If you can't, would you please explain why the truth should be considered hate speech?

Has it occurred to you that you may be according religion precisely that uncritical respect that Dawkins is complaining about?

[Dion]

Richard Dawkins is saying something that if a Christian were to say it about a Hindu (for example) folk would consider perilously close to hate speech and rightly so because it is nothing more or less than stereotyping of the most odious kind.

Would you please point out where Richard Dawkins says something that is untrue?

If you can't, would you please explain why the truth should be considered hate speech?

Has it occurred to you that you may be according religion precisely that uncritical respect that Dawkins is complaining about?

[kiwimac]

Would you please point out where Richard Dawkins says something that is untrue?

If you can't, would you please explain why the truth should be considered hate speech?

Has it occurred to you that you may be according religion precisely that uncritical respect that Dawkins is complaining about?

Let's take a look at the OP and what Richard Dawkins said:

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

1: Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation.

There is indeed no way to prove belief. It has to be accepted or rejected on its own basis but not all people of faith are looking for consolation or believe in order to be consoled. This is stereotyping, like saying "all Muslims are dangerous fanatics."

2: September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others

What September 11 was about had little to do with any faith. It was more to do with politics especially the politics of empire which had seen the US interfering in the Middle-East for decades. As well, the Islamic faith does not support the idea of an attack on the non-combatants in a war, even a war as nebulous as the one taking place now.

3: And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism.

This one is laughable because the very existence of the post indicates that dawkins is wrong because he is, in its course, doing the very things he says isn't happening.

Apart from these considerations Dawkins is stereotyping all people of faith as capable of being "lethally dangerous." Which is, of course, a nonsense. Not all people of faith are homicidal maniacs just as not all scientists are prejudiced and bigoted. A really good indicator of stereotyping, BTW, is to replace the subject used with another one, for instance;

"...Many of us saw SCIENCE as harmless nonsense. SCIENCE might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. PRACTICAL SCIENCE is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others.... "

It is ludicrous to paint all scientists as dangerous manufacturers of weapons and equally ludicrous to paint all believers as lethally dangerous.

AND apart from all this, this is Dawkins OPINION which he has labelled as being a truthful summation of the universe WITHOUT adding the rider "as I see it."

It is untrue, it is hateful but worst of all it is unhelpful, it stereotypes ordinary folk as potentially dangerous and then argues that this is because people are too polite to talk about it, all the while attacking religious belief in as impolite fashion as you might like.

Kiwimac

[QED]

A really good indicator of stereotyping, BTW, is to replace the subject used with another one, for instance;

"...Many of us saw SCIENCE as harmless nonsense. SCIENCE might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. PRACTICAL SCIENCE is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others.... "

It really doesn't work though does it? One reasonable definition of Science could be that it can enable us to understand why a belief is wrong. I can think of no parallel to this in religion. Neither can I see how Science can give anyone false courage to deliberately and knowingly kill themselves.

Surely the key difference here is that Science has to earn its respect and it is constantly monitored for error. In Scientific circles people earn their stripes by questioning and shooting-down the theories of others. In religion it looks as though it's totally the other way around. This seems like such an obvious polarisation that I can't understand how one could be mistaken for the other.

[QED]

BTW, welcome to the DC&R forums kiwimac

You will understand that as a Priest I have a certain set of beliefs. But I have arrived at these beliefs through contemplation, out of long, hard thought and out of times spent trying to work out the why of the universe.

This is the very same subject that keeps me awake at night! I don't know about you, but I'm forever running into ambiguities... for example, our friend Mr. Dawkins might be too outspoken for general comfort but he's certainly set out a compelling case against the intelligent design argument. Now it's not anything new of course, the history of this particular argument goes back to the earliest of known philosophers. Thankfully now though, we have more than enough science and technology to select our interpretations from all the philosophical possibilities.

Apart from the prediction of genetics prior to the discovery of DNA, the biggest clincher for me is being able to play around with the principles of natural selection for real -- in order to evolve technological products. Actually being able to generate apparently intelligently designed products from non-intelligent systems is something that cuts sharply through the fog of dissent generated by those who would prefer to stick to their own particular philosophy. Mr. Dawkins would certainly approve, but don't for goodness sake hold that against me

[Dion]

Would you please point out where Richard Dawkins says something that is untrue?

If you can't, would you please explain why the truth should be considered hate speech?

Has it occurred to you that you may be according religion precisely that uncritical respect that Dawkins is complaining about?

Let's take a look at the OP and what Richard Dawkins said:

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

1: Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation.

There is indeed no way to prove belief. It has to be accepted or rejected on its own basis but not all people of faith are looking for consolation or believe in order to be consoled. This is stereotyping, like saying "all Muslims are dangerous fanatics."

Not all people may be seeking consolation in religion but in my experience the vast majority are. People routinely turn to religion in times of crisis to the point where such a reaction is a cliché. Indeed the old, and untrue, saw that 'there are no atheists in foxholes' more or less concedes the point.

Quite how you go from "people ... are looking for consolation" to "'all Muslims are dangerous fanatics'" I'm not sure?

2: September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others

What September 11 was about had little to do with any faith. It was more to do with politics especially the politics of empire which had seen the US interfering in the Middle-East for decades. As well, the Islamic faith does not support the idea of an attack on the non-combatants in a war, even a war as nebulous as the one taking place now.

The political aspect we probable agree on. It is unfortunate that some Muslims seem to disagree on your second point. All the evidence seems to suggest that those who carried out the various recent atrocities felt that their God would, at the least, not disapprove of their actions. Indeed it appears that most if not all of them felt that their actions would gain them immediate entry to paradise.

3: And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism.

This one is laughable because the very existence of the post indicates that dawkins is wrong because he is, in its course, doing the very things he says isn't happening.

Dawkins is the exception. There is undoubtedly a social convention that we don't challenge people on their religious beliefs and practises even when they are clearly irrational. Worse, religious views are given an exaggerated level of respect in general. What television debate on, say, stem cell research, would be complete without the obligatory representative of one religious sect and/or another. And if one why not all? Where exactly does the Bible mention stem cell research anyway? What expertise on the subject do these people have that I don't? Why is the atheist view not routinely represented in these debates?

Apart from these considerations Dawkins is stereotyping all people of faith as capable of being "lethally dangerous." Which is, of course, a nonsense. Not all people of faith are homicidal maniacs just as not all scientists are prejudiced and bigoted. A really good indicator of stereotyping,

Where does Dawkins say "all" people of faith.? Do you really dispute that some people are lethally dangerous because of their religious beliefs? Shall I just mention the word 'Inquisition'?

... is to replace the subject used with another one, for instance;

"...Many of us saw SCIENCE as harmless nonsense. SCIENCE might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. PRACTICAL SCIENCE is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others.... "

Most ably answered by QED in his post. I don't think that I need add anything.

It is ludicrous to paint all scientists as dangerous manufacturers of weapons and equally ludicrous to paint all believers as lethally dangerous.

I've already answered the "all" thing above.

AND apart from all this, this is Dawkins OPINION which he has labelled as being a truthful summation of the universe WITHOUT adding the rider "as I see it."

So he omitted "as I see it". This appears to be rather desperate nit-picking! I think that any reasonable person would have assumed that much.

It is untrue, it is hateful but worst of all it is unhelpful, it stereotypes ordinary folk as potentially dangerous and then argues that this is because people are too polite to talk about it, all the while attacking religious belief in as impolite fashion as you might like.

I don't think you have demonstrated that what Dawkins says is untrue, except by adding the "all" yourself to support your unjustified claim of stereotyping.

I certainly agree with Dawkins that religious (in my view, irrational superstitious) views are given an exaggerated respect. Do you really believe that the various gods of Hinduism (which religion you appeared to leap to the defence of in a previous post) are not the product of irrational superstition? If so, perhaps your superiors in your church would be interested to hear more of your views on how rational belief in Hindu gods is. I especially like the one with the head of an elephant myself. Which is your favourite?

Impolite? Where exactly is he impolite? You mean he does not display the customary exaggerated respect that you are used to receiving for your views? That response makes his point for him.

[Jose]

Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense.

Apart from these considerations Dawkins is stereotyping all people of faith as capable of being "lethally dangerous." Which is, of course, a nonsense. Not all people of faith are homicidal maniacs just as not all scientists are prejudiced and bigoted. A really good indicator of stereotyping,

Where does Dawkins say "all" people of faith.? Do you really dispute that some people are lethally dangerous because of their religious beliefs? Shall I just mention the word 'Inquisition'?

If I may interrupt briefly...I'd like to suggest that Dawkins is using the science-tradition that every word has a precise meaning. This is often overlooked by non-scientists reading scientists' writing. In this case, Dawkins says "...it can be lethally dangerous. The fact that it can be dangerous in certain people's hands does not make it dangerous in everyone's hands. It is not appropriate to interpret Dawkins' statement as a blanket accusation of all religions or all those who practice religion.

The same is true of the re-working of his statement to poke fun at scientists. It is true that science can be used lethally--that's what those assumed WMD's were all about.

The real question is not whether there are wackos who use religion or who use science to do evil. It is a given that there are some.

The real question is, "what is it about religion that enables some people to Believe so fervently that they are willing to die because of it?

Most Muslims don't fly planes into buildings. Apparently, a few wackos did. Apparently, they did so as part of their jihad. They apparently believed their religion's claim that martydom would lead them directly into the arms of 70 virgins. This is an example of what Dawkins describes: the ability of religious belief to support actions that we would normally consider to put life and limb at risk.

[sue]

Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying:

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

Is Dawkins just an intolerant person, or is he ahead of his time in seeing the need to try and squelch religion?

Neither. The behavior that Dawkins is really describing is just mob violence, which can happen with or without religion. Religion itself is mostly harmless. It's how people use it that can make it dangerous. (This is my guns don't kill people; people kill people argument).

People reveal their faith here all the time, and for the most part manage to be civil.

It's unfortunate that so many, including Dawkins, view respect as being "weird".