Religion
Related: About this forumRichard Dawkins: Churchgoers enable fundamentalists by being 'nice'
Dawkins says ordinary believers had inadvertently paved the way for extremists (Photo: Jay Williams)
Because moderate Christians and Muslims are so pleasant people believe that religion is good, Dawkins says
9:47PM BST 13 Aug 2014
By Hannah Furness, Arts Correspondent
Decent, ordinary churchgoers have helped enable religious fundamentalists to become suicide bombers by being "so nice" that people do not question their faiths, Richard Dawkins has argued.
Dawkins, the evolutionary scientist and outspoken atheist, said moderate Christian and Muslim believers had inadvertently paved the way for extremists.
Saying they had made non-evidence-based belief a "legitimate reason" for their behaviour, he claimed they have now helped "make the world safe" for fundamentalists to exist.
Speaking at the Edinburgh International Book Festival, he told an audience that moderate believers were "so nice" they had made it difficult for society to question their faith.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11032654/Richard-Dawkins-Churchgoers-enable-fundamentalists-by-being-nice.html
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)DerekG
(2,935 posts)My knowledge of Dawkins is limited. When discussing the rise of Islamic fanaticism, is he inclined to broach geopolitical calamities like the '53 coup in Iran, our unwavering support of Israel, drone killings, and the longstanding coddling of various dictators, or does the professor just like to foist the blame on hundreds of millions of decent people?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Fundamentalists thrive on black and white, us v. them narratives, and on using the perceived misdeeds of their enemies to justify increasing their own extremism. "Nice" is exactly what short-circuits that cycle by refuting fundamentalist claims of the supposed total evil of the Other.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Maybe we should have a thread inquiring whether those who repeat this nonsense are suffering from mass delusion.
Seriously, the guy needs to go back to science. He actually knows something about that.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)can make the leap from hard science to social science.
Dawkins cannot, and it shows.
As far as Nice being a flaw, that is a fllacy. Nothing says we cannot attack people who, regardless of their metapyhsical opinion, tend to exhibit violent and antisocial behavior, be they theist, or athiest.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)This good British moderate declared Mussolini "a good person to do business with." And later, after signing a treaty with Hitler, our peaceful idealist declared that this appeasement meant "peace in our time."
Just before Hitler violated the non-aggression pact - and started WW II.
Violent people have always had moderate 1) "apologists," 2) "enablers," and 3) in biblical language, "white"washers.
Moderates, who times support "religion" generically, or who in church often claim unity with their "Christian brothers," the fundamentalists, through "Christian charity" to others of the faith, often function as enablers for the more violent wing of their religion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)there are religious extremists, and it's because they are too "nice".
There's some sterling reason and rational, logical thinking for you. Dawkins - together we can find a cure.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 20, 2014, 05:36 AM - Edit history (1)
"It's very important that we should not demonise ordinary, law-abiding, very decent Muslims which of course is the vast majority in this country"....
[But] "There is a sense in which the moderate, nice religious people nice Christians, nice Muslims make the world safe for extremists.... Because the moderates are so nice we all are brought up with the idea that there's something good about religion faith. That there's something good about bringing children up to have a faith. " Which means to believe something without evidence and without the need for justifying it.
"They're entitled simply to say 'oh that's my faith, I believe it, you're not allowed to question it and you're not allowed to ask me why I hold it'.
"Once you teach people that that's a legitimate reason for believing something then you as it were give a licence to the extremists who say 'my belief is that I'm supposed to be a suicide bomber or I'm supposed to blow up buildings it's my faith and you can't question that."
TM99
(8,352 posts)that I am tacitly responsible for the behaviors of extremists like himself and other anti-theists because I do not 'call them out' enough on their bigotry, bullshit, and unresolved psychological projections?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I can think of a couple things uttered by Sam Harris that I object to, because of the things you specified. Yes, I do call 'our side' out, and I hope you do too.
The pursuit of justice, and truth, that overrides any need I have for say, winning an argument. I would hope that is true for all of us.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Perpetrators, collaborators, bystanders, victims: we can be clear about three of these categories. The bystander, however, is the fulcrum. If there are enough notable exceptions, then protest reaches a critical mass. We dont usually think of history as being shaped by silence, but, as English philosopher Edmund Burke said, The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing."
A lesser known related proposition:
Be not afraid of enemies; the worst they can do is to kill you. Do not be afraid of friends; the worst they can do is betray you. Be afraid of the indifferent; they do no kill or betray. But only because of their silent agreement, betrayal and murder exist on earth.
--Bruno Yasiensky "The Plot of the Indifferent" (1937)
That said, I don't think Dawkins has proven that claim. The claim has been made, I'd like to see some evidence. I can suggest some lines of inquiry, such as the silent nodding in agreement I saw from a lot of my moderate Christian friends that accepted the outrage that was the murder of Dr. George Tiller. I ended some friendships over that one. People who insisted that Roeder wouldn't be convicted by a "good Christian jury", etc. The general environment of anti-abortion activism/outrage, etc. I think that environment breeds radicals like Roeder. And that's ignoring years of bombs, arson, and other shit directed at Tiller's clinic, and threats made to Tiller himself.
I did not see NEARLY enough outrage from the religious in America at that murder. So I would offer that as one possible example of the sort of thing Dawkins is getting at.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...I've seen in a long, long time.