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?

[Dion]

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".

I don't think that Dawkins is suggesting that "most people" of faith are bad. The quotation we have been discussing doesn't seem to say that as I read it.

I don't think that anyone is saying that respect is "weird", merely that it should be earned, not given automatically to any world view simply because it labels itself as religion.

[MagusYanam]

Hello, Dion! I'm liking your Gaspar avatar ('Hey.') - as you can see by mine, I'm a Chrono Trigger man myself.

I don't think that Dawkins is suggesting that "most people" of faith are bad. The quotation we have been discussing doesn't seem to say that as I read it.

I don't think that anyone is saying that respect is "weird", merely that it should be earned, not given automatically to any world view simply because it labels itself as religion.

You're right in that Dawkins never says people of faith are morally deficient or in some other way bad, though the way he uses the term 'nonsense' to refer to religious beliefs is somewhat inflammatory on his part. And somewhat incorrect, considering that I acquired my religious convictions based on rational grounds (i.e. not wishful thinking, as Mr. Dawkins seems to suggest). He is right to say, however, that religion in the wrong hands can be 'lethally dangerous'.

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).

I like the counter to this analogy that the Baptist theologian Charles Kimball describes in his book Five Warning Signs. Comparing religion to a loaded gun in the hands of Usama bin Laden is by all means appropriate, but when the analogy is extended to, say, Mahatma Gandhi or Reverend King, it is not only inappropriate but insulting. When such a broad and tricky topic as religion is addressed, it is best to tread carefully (which is not to say that it is somehow exempt from criticism - if religion leads to morally or epistemologically reprehensible beliefs it deserves the appropriate criticisms, regardless of whether it's Christianity, Islam or Hinduism).

Fortunately, being an undergraduate philosophy major, I don't need particularly to deal with the kind of moral or epistemological relativism that other disciplines (history and English are big ones) have come to accept as mainstream. I don't think it's enough just to say, 'well, you think that way but I think this way' - we should feel compelled to provide reasons to back our arguments. So I agree with you, Dion, that respect for a view should be earned, but the basis of that respect should be how effectively it is posited and defended.

Farewell for now to you, Guru Gaspar; I shall see you at the End of Time.

[QED]

I think it only makes sense if Dawkins wrote that while in shock over the events of 9/11. Obviously "harmless nonsense" is not how all those who have been persecuted through religious motives would see it.

Isn't this all really a question about respect for authority? In the West we prefer our Authority to be democratically elected. Authority that is "handed down from upon high" is not of this description. I return to to minor but instructive matter of school dress-codes where Muslim pupils pitch the authority of their particular faith against the authority of the school. In the case of public schools we can audit the authority of the school directly back to those who elected the national government. Any attempt to follow the audit trail towards the authority of a religion might leave us staring up into the sky.

Anyone can start a new religion today without any objective evidence to support their faith. What time limit or threshold number of acolytes, etc. is there to identify those who are allowed to challenge established authority I wonder? It seems absurd to think that religion, by virtue of its appeal to some ultimate (but intangible) authority should automatically be granted the respect of all men.

[Jose]

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".

I don't think that anyone is saying that respect is "weird", merely that it should be earned, not given automatically to any world view simply because it labels itself as religion.

I don't think it's enough just to say, 'well, you think that way but I think this way' - we should feel compelled to provide reasons to back our arguments. So I agree with you, Dion, that respect for a view should be earned, but the basis of that respect should be how effectively it is posited and defended.

I think it only makes sense if Dawkins wrote that while in shock over the events of 9/11. Obviously "harmless nonsense" is not how all those who have been persecuted through religious motives would see it.

Perhaps Dawkins' knowledge of human history is less impressive than his knowledge of evolution. I'd read this passage of his to include all flavors of religious intolerance and violence, which we seem to agree are bad uses of religion. Perhaps he didn't get around to thinking of it that way until 9/11. Perhaps he thought 9/11 would make a connection to those Americans who are not so great at history themselves. I picture Dawkins' notion of "harmless nonsense" to refer to things outside of the instances of intolerance and violence, where people follow their religions yet maintain respect for others.

As I see it, the respect we afford religion stems from exactly this. There are those who are intolerant, and who use their religion as justification for their views. It's hard to have a civil discussion with someone who considers your simple questioning to be an Attack. We've seen that here, actually. It's rare compared to civil discussion, but we have seen it. In my experience, those who see questioning as Attack tend to be those with the most firmly held beliefs.

There are reports that schools that have introduced courses on Comparative Religion find that their students develop much greater tolerance for others and much less dogmatic certainty about their own beliefs. At the same time, there are adults (at least, people whose chronological age places them in the "adult" group) who are very resistant to such courses. They fear that their kids, or the kids of others, will become tolerant of other religions, and hold their own beliefs less dogmatically. These "adults" don't just refuse criticism of their own religion, they refuse knowledge of other religions, even when no criticism is given!

Perhaps the "respect" we show for religion, in our failure to criticize it openly, represents learning from historical precedent. If criticizers become persecuted or burned at the stake for heresy, one learns to hold one's tongue.

One might, for example, look at the venom with which some people speak of Dawkins, simply for criticizing religion. Inflammatory phrasing of criticism, perhaps, but nonetheless only words.

[sue]

Reread the rules - as I don't have any evidence to support my opinions on this particular topic I'm bowing out.

Sorry (insert dumb newb excuse here).

[Manny]

He was careful to say "Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense"

He said nothing about an individuals spiritual quest. Questioning beliefs. Which a religion like Hindusim and Buddism allows. Not just question em, but also rejecting some or all aspects of it if you so deduce after musing over it. Those non revelation religions do not excommunicate if you do not buy into their musings nor do they condem one to hell to burn in eternity for rejecting them. There is no cooercion or threat of any kind. There are religions with true liberty of spiritual quest. Some religions are to spirituality what freedom of speech is to liberty. Others are more like communism. People running around trying to convert everyone to their TRUTH in that little red book of Chairman Mao.


An important differenece.

[Jose]

An interesting point, Manny. In a spiritual quest, one is free to--and expected to--investigate alternatives. In a religion of "revealed truth" there is no questioning and there are no alternatives. The radical fundamentalists tend to be of the latter persuasion. Yet, there are often more relaxed versions of the same faiths in which a certain amount of personal questing is allowed. I wonder what prevents the literalists from considering the personal quest.

[kiwimac]

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!

I have no objection to people assessing a faith, investigating its history, looking critically ast it. Dawkins language is, however, inflammatory. Replace "Revealed faith" with Judaism or Mormonism and see how well it sits.

Kiwimac

[Manny]

Judaism or Mormonism and see how well it sits.


True..neither Judaism nor Mormonsim have a history of terror behind it.

He should have just said "Islam and Christianity".

[kiwimac]

Which is, of course, exactly the point I was NOT making. Religions are not responsible for the actions of their adherents. What creates suicide bombers and religious genocide is the kind of attitude Dawkins was showing in his post. The attitude which says, "this is the truth, not just the truth as I see it personally, but the whole of the truth."

Kiwimac