Atheist Richard Dawkins on 'The God Delusion'

[and-justice-for-all]

In the last few years, Americans have seen the harm that results when political decisions are made in the name of religion. Now, the non-believers are fighting back.

In the last few years, Americans have seen the dark side of religion. The events of 9/11 brought home the extremes to which some radical Muslims would go to defeat infidels and attain virgins. At home, we've seen assaults on the separation of Church and State and attacks on the teaching of evolution and the distribution of life-saving condoms. And now, it appears the godless are fighting back.


More: http://richarddawkins.net/article,542,Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-on-The-God-Delusion,Terrence-McNally-AlterNet

[More Than A Feeling]

1. This seems likely to end up in R/T

I knew it had been a long time since that forum had its last Dawkins/Harris fight.

[Deep13]

2. I'm listening to it.

It's pretty technical at times. Also, I don't know that his basic premise for the disproof of god is really valid. The premise is that any god capable of creating or regulating such a complex universe must be at least as complex as the universe. This, of course invites the question, who made god? Since the whole point of supernatural explanations is that they do not rely on physical reality, a god capable of creating the universe needs be neither complex nor created. I'm not suggesting there is a god, just that Dawkins' evidence of nonexistence is not the absolute proof he claims. Frankly, the circumstantial evidence is what I find compelling, the fact that there are naturalistic reasons why people think there is a god.

[heidler1]

51. I never heard of Dawkins, but I thought of that argument 60 years ago.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. This Guy Sounds Like A Fundamentalist Atheist.

[Deep13]

8. What does that mean?

Someone who insists on looking at evidence and nothing else is not a fundamentalist in that sense of the word. A religious fundamentalist relies on subjective faith and refuses to accept any evidence to the contrary not matter how compelling.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Think About It For A While. I'll Hold Onto Faith That You Can Figure It Out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. What it should mean is that he believes some book about atheism is literally true

and everything about atheism, and possibly life, should be based on that book (or books). But I'm buggered if I can think which book you're thinking of. Why not enlighten us?

[applegrove]

16. He is a fundamentalist cause he sees people with other experience of life

and denies them their humanity because he doesn't see it for his own life. I'm an agnostic and churches do good in the world. People have boots on the ground in places where no liberal would go to live out their life..say with orphans in Africa. Some of us do need religion. It is a very human way to be and can lift mountains for both the giver and the receiver. Think of the 20th century and the way churches were hand in hand on the civil rights & poverty movements with Liberals.

Love is delusional. If we cut out all the delusions in the world..the happiest married couples, blind in their mutual bliss and thinking each other the greatest person ever,would have to divorce pronto. I think he takes his scientific beliefs too far.

Someone hands me a flower and I think it has meaning..that they love me or want me to be happy. Scientifically - that person has just likely killed a plant or at the very least interfered with the reproductive cycle of a rose, starved a honeybee, and brought bacteria into my home.

There are levels of consciousness and feeling. And so to varied abilities of people to believe in god. And that cuts across cultures. It is a scientific fact. Humans being can be born with the ability to do math or the ability to do religious belief (or both).

We are all fighting now because the certain political interests around the world find religion convenient way to stay in political power and accumulate wealth. I try and keep that in mind and not fall into the paranoid stance each side has against the other. Neither side is attacking the people responsible for that void between them. They are attacking each other. And that serves someone: someone who is neither god nor their own personal best interests.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. "Denies them their humanity"?

Where? How?

[Goblinmonger]

41. 2 things

1. That is not what a fundamentalist is. Is is someone who follows the fundamentals of a religion/book/dogma. There is not such thing for atheism. Atheism is just a lack of a beleif.

2. I think, on the contrary, that Dawkins fights FOR people's humanity. He doesn't want them wasting time on something which isn't true and which doesn't add anything. In many cases it subtracts. Sure there are religious that do good. MLK, Jr. would have been a good guy with out religion. Dawkins focuses on humans focusing on themselves and not service to an imaginary being. Dawkins is NOT against love, or nice gestures like giving a flower. Where has her EVER argued that?

[NMMNG]

17. He already answered that accusation

TM: People finally say, "What's it to you? Why not be an atheist if that's what works for you, and leave the rest of us to be as religious as we wish?" This, I believe, is offered as a challenge to your open-mindedness or your respect for others. You're being called "an atheist fundamentalist."

RD: "Fundamentalist" usually means, "goes by the book." And so, a religious fundamentalist goes back to the fundamentals of The Bible or The Koran and says, "nothing can change." Of course, that's not the case with any scientist, and certainly not with me. So, I'm not a fundamentalist in that sense.

[Goblinmonger]

42. My first reaction to your saying that is

:boring:

I mean, seriously, give it up. There is no book nor dogma for atheists. He CANNOT be a fundamentalist and that is just from the definitional level. Quit throwing around right-wing talking points like "fundamentalist" for anyone who doesn't agree with you.

[Blue-Jay]

4. I'm not sure that I care.

On one hand, I resent the movement by evangelicals to insert their mythology into legislation and public education.

On the other hand, Dawkins is sort of a douchebag.

[ToolTex]

5. Squirrel.

Don't sell them short! Squirrels have built a secret network of radio telescopes.

[AlCzervik]

6. i read his book on vacation and while i liked it i thought it was a bit condescending.

[Deep13]

9. Well, he calls it like he sees it.

He is unwilling to give any deference to anyones subjective belief and in that regard is not that much different than most religious people are regarding him. Most of what he states as being as true without room for reasonable disagreement are proven, objective facts.

[bananas]

15. He gives a lot of deference to that woo-woo Sam Harris

"Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has practically adopted Harris as the American Robin to his Batman in confronting unreason wherever it may lurk in the hearts of men."
"But doesn't his, a mishmash of Buddhism and "Time-Life Mysteries of The Unknown," weaken his case against Christians?"
http://www.alternet.org/story/46196/

Even James Randi calls Sam Harris a woo-woo:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=106202&mesg_id=106851

[Blue-Jay]

11. Precisely.

I checked his book out of the library, and only finished about 2/3 of it. Speaking as an atheist, I think the guy's an asshole. He's every bit as bad as the crazy fundie fuckers who insist that people must conform to their beliefs.

Then again, people of his ilk haven't done nearly as much damage to society as have the fundies. I don't care for forceful ideologues of any stripe.

[Odin2005]

24. I've come to have a huge dislike of Dawkins, and I'm an Atheist.

He's an arrogant asshole, even when it comes to evolutionary biology. Most evolutionary biologists consider his form of extreme Gene Selectionism to be bunk, yet Dawkins and his buddies in the Molecular Biology community treats it as revealed truth.

[madrchsod]

7. he can`t prove there is`t a god

and other`s can`t prove there is. what i find interesting that the record shows that mankind has always idolized something other than themselves

[Deep13]

10. Do we have an inferiority complex?

Actually, I am at the point in the book where he describes a possible biological basis for religiosity.

[and-justice-for-all]

34. Yes, I think I smell fear....

...Believers have a complex about the none-existence of their deities and Heaven, their religion is like a childs security blanket that they do not want to let go of, even with the obvious right in front of them, which is that they have out grown it.

Religion was created to deal with death, something to hide man's mortallity behind. Humans think of theirselves as superior and therefore incapable of the fate as all the other creatures on this Earth. Those who can not face their mortallity wrap theirselves in a religion, instead of acknowledging the truth.

If people would would understand that they only have 30,000 days on this Earth and that once it comes to the end, its over. Our fate is that with every other living carbon based lifeform on this planet, we have no special ticket to paradise or Heaven. So when you take your last breath and fire off your last brain synapsis its over...Thats not a bleak out look, it makes me appreceiate and be thankful that I have been able to live, love and experience life to its fullest. I am not going to waste it on paranoia and subservience to something that has never given any shed of evidence to convience me to hand over my life to it. I might as well pray to a gallon of milk, the answering of my prays to that gallon ofmilk would be the same as though I was praying to the invisiable man in the sky.

People should not spend their lives diluting theirselves with false hopes and wasting time and resources contributing to the Church in any manner, if you think that any preacher or priest has a direct line to g-d, you have been sold snake-oil. Its a false front and those who run those organizations take full advantage of the ones who are subseptable to those shamans conditionings, convincing those people to give the religious organizations funds and obedience.

[Orrex]

14. But

and other`s can`t prove there is. what i find interesting that the record shows that mankind has always idolized something other than themselves

But the religions of Abraham idolize a God in whose image we are allegedly created, which is an oblique and indirect manifestation of self-idolatry.

[and-justice-for-all]

33. But in any case, one is correct and the other is wrong...nt

[Goblinmonger]

43. Why is it the burden of those to prove the negative.

If someone thinks there is a god, then they need to prove it. Calling bullshit on the claim that there is a god does not shift the burden to the one calling bullshit. Though, if you read his book, I think he makes some pretty good claims/arguments.

[Hosnon]

45. Because an athiest is not just calling bullshit on the claim.

An agnostic calls bullshit. An atheist goes one step further and states, affirmatively, that there is no god.

A theist says: I know there is a god.
An atheist says: I know there is not a god.

Both are positive statements that require evidence if they are to be convincing.

[immoderate]

46. You have that wrong.

You must be new around here.

While atheists vary in their approach, you'll find that most atheists around here think there is no evidence to indicate there is a god in the way such a creature is described by most theists.

Atheists do not know there is no god, they know there is no compelling reason to believe in a god.

Is knowing there is no Santa Claus a "positive statement that require(s) evidence if (it is) to be convincing..."

--IMM

[Hosnon]

49. There is a spectrum with an atheist on one end a theist on the other.

In between there are countless variations with individual labels, e.g. strong, weak. I provided definitions for the two end points. Perhaps some forms of atheism do not assert there is no god, but those are not the forms I was referring.

And I don't think the Santa Claus analogy works well. The existence of Santa at least has the possibility of providing evidence in the physical world. If he did exist, we should be able to track him with radar, etc. The very idea of god places it out of the physical realm, i.e., god cannot, by definition, be proved with physical evidence.

That may not be the case with something like Santa Claus.

And why must I be new here?

[immoderate]

55. You must be new here because...

You could not possibly be ignoring the testimony of just about every atheist who posts here. Instead you quote dictionary definitions that are written by theists.

The prefix "a-" means without. You might be able to find some atheists who will claim absolute knowledge of the non-existence of god, but good luck finding one here. What atheists do have in common is that they don't believe in god, because there is no evidence to indicate god exists. Just as with other imaginary beings, (unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, etc.) you can't prove their not there, but that doesn't twist into a proof that they do exist.

God would be outside the realm of physical evidence if he has no interaction with the physical world. But then, he wouldn't have any powers, so what kind of god would he be?

Can you "prove" that Santa doesn't have a stealth sleigh? No? Then I'm sure you can see why the radar won't detect him.

--IMM

[Goblinmonger]

47. Well

you can redefine atheism any way you want, but your definition ain't the definition. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. Look to the root. a = lack. a-theism is "lack" of theism. There is not affirmative declaration necessary in atheism.

On a related note, why is there always a shuffle of the burden? Let's just assume your definition (with all due apologies in advance to Evoman):

Pat Duncanson: There is a god.
Goblin Mawkins: No there isn't; there is absolutely no proof of god.
PD: You can't prove that. How do you know that is true? You are no different than I.
GM: What? You are the one who says there is a god.
PD: Yeah, but you said there isn't and that's no different than my argument.
GM: Sure it's different. You are claiming the existence of something. I am saying it doesn't exist.
PD: Why can't you believe you have a belief system? You can't prove there isn't a god so my argument and your argument are on the same footing.
GM: No, dude, really they aren't. You are making an affirmative claim of the existence of something with absolutely not proof for the existence of that thing. I am saying there is no god because there is no proof. Those are totally different.
PD: No they aren't :fingers in ears: la, la, la, la, la.

Come on, man, the person making the affirmative claim has the burden. Don't try to shift it on to those that say there is no proof. And I'm not even getting into the logical fallacy of asking someone to prove a negative (prove there isn't a unicorn, or a pixie, or a magical invisible dragon in my garage--are you ready to put those on the same plane as your god?).

[Hosnon]

50. Your definition is incorrect.

Lack of a belief would be non-theism. Theism is the belief that there is a god. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Atheism (the strict definition) is most certainly an assertion.

Dictionary.com, Wikipedia.com, Philosophypages.com all support my definition (two out of three may be dubious sources, but it's late and it's a start for the time being).

And you still must not be getting the difference between 1) saying there is no proof of god and 2) saying there is proof of no god. Goblin, in your example, states the first proposition. An atheist believes the second. Then again, Goblin eventually does claim that god doesn't exist - and that is an affirmative statement.

The fallacy of proving a negative is why strict atheism is bogus to me. And I can't disprove unicorns, pixies, etc. nor do I care to try. However, I can rely on reason and the normal course of things to make them highly unlikely (such as there being no circumstantial evidence that a dragon has ever been in your garage). But if anything, like god, by definition is not in the physical world then I can't disprove it either.

And for the record, I don't have a god. I'm an agnostic (so perhaps I have all and no god(s)). I know there are gradations used and I should point out that I'm not a strict agnostic.

[cosmik debris]

57. We go through this about once a month

1) Someone decides to define atheism in a self-serving way.

2) They cite an online dictionary and wikipedia as the ultimate source of infallible knowledge.

3) They are politely (at first) informed that their definitions are not accurate because they are written by people with a self-serving motive.

4) Etymology is discussed.

5) Flame war ensues.

Bottom line: You can tell people what they believe, or you can ask people what they believe. I would encourage you to abandon the former and adopt the latter. It is more productive and less offensive.

[Goblinmonger]

59. Do you really go around saying

"There is a high probability that there is no Easter Bunny." "Unicorns most likely don't exist." "I think that all signs point to the reality there are no dragons." Cause if you do, carry a camera because I want to see the looks of those you talk to.

cosmik gave you a good version of this same fight we have. Let me give you my highlights.

1. It is rude to tell someone what they do and do not believe. I don't tell theists what they believe. Don't tell me what I believe.

2. The difference is between gnosticism and theism. Gnosticism has to do with knowledge. Theism has to do with belief. Therefore, an a-gnostic does not think there is knowledge of god but may (and likely does) think there is something though we cannot know what that is; the a-theist does not deal with knowledge but lacks the belief in god. So, you could be an agnotic theist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic atheist, or any other of the combinations.

And I've seen the dragon in my garage, so prove that he isn't there. Can't you see how that is a logical fallacy?

[and-justice-for-all]

52. It is not the burden of the Non-theist...

...To disprove the claim of the theist who defends that there is an invisiable man in the sky, who also happens to be quite intrusive and demands their money through his numorous "holy houses", an through middle man whom adds to the lord g-ds pot every week.

Now, if the theist was able to provide even the slightest bit of tangable evidence that their deity exist, we then could be a bit more open to the possiblity. But since they have absolutly nothing but "faith" as their undeniable evidence, we can with out doubt, say that it does not exist. We are all really Atheist, but Non-theist just take it one god further. If you ask the monotheist if they believe in Ra or Odin they will say "No", why then is it so easy for them to dismiss Odin and yet at the sametime believe in exactly that; that which does not exist. Odin, Allah, Yahweh are the samething...Non-existent, make-believe, wishful thinking creations of man.

"Faith" is not proof. "Faith" is evidence of someone allowing themselves to belief in something without proof what-so-ever. A planet inhabited by beings detached from reality is not a good thing, it will and does have real bad consequences to it. As I am sure you have seen during your time here and what religion is currently doing.

Non-theist are not the ones making the claim that there is an all seeing eye in the sky and if you close your eyes and talk to yourself it will give you things. Well, if you ask it to appear it will not show up and dont bother praying to end the worlds troubles because it will not ever happen.

I would call all religion total bullshit. A suckers sink hole trap that conviences them to believe in the unbelievable and walk through life preparing to goto a place that does not exist, not to mention the wonderful means which you may use to get to paradise. Instead of getting the most out off the 30,000 days they have on Earth, they waste that time on going to church and give that evil empire their resources and maybe even kill a few people for it.

Religion is mass sociatal control and breaking away from this brainwashing will be the best thing to happen to man. We do not need this and we are rather stuck in a major rut as long as this dead weight is allowed to continue its noose like vice around our neck.

[Az]

12. When a theist makes their claims as though there was no question

Few people think twice about it. When they lay down their terms in black and white absolutes there is no hugh and cry from the masses telling them they should be more tolerant. They are seen as expressing their belief as they see it.

Now while tactically I do not agree with Dawkins approach (the use of the word delusion is enough to send most running from his book) I do understand what he is trying to say and do. He is presenting his views as he truly sees things. He is stating what he believes. He is defending it as well presenting his arguments. If he were a theist explaining his views he would be given a great deal of lattitude. But because he is an atheist he is called to the matt for his views.

[and-justice-for-all]

18. I agree with "woo-woo" Sam Harris and Dawkins.....

....without any doubts in there reasoning and arguments. Because what they say is correct and true, there is more evidence against the existence of a supreme being then there is for it. If there was ANY shed of evidence that might possibly give the slightest clue of the existence of a supreme being, then there would be something to prove that it does..But not surprising there is none.

Its quite simple really. You know of Zeus, Poseidon, Ra, Isis, Odin, Freya and all those other ancient deities whom have (for the most part) no longer serve any purpose, why there demise? Because we know they too do not exist on any level, accept the "pretend" level, they too are also invisible and work on ambiguity (You can not see them, but they are everywhere). As with all the prophets and numerous characters in the Tonach/Torah/bible/the Koran...etc, those characters are just the same as those ancient deities that were worshiped in the past. Ambiguous, non-existent deities.

Now we all know that they are just like that of Santa Clause, Leprechauns and Unicorns, not real, they are all based on false beliefs. We are all Atheist to those ancient g-ds and children's tales, playing make-believe is childish behavior. So, why do so many people as adults continue to play such a game of self-deceit with themselves? Claiming that there is an ever watchful eye on you from an invisible man in the sky or where ever is paranoia, or a Delusion as Dawkins book title states. I have had my agnostic phase in life, I have always been skeptical of the supernatural, though it is good entertainment and those who create such things have a wonderful imagination.

The overall effect of a planet inhabited by creatures that walk around in a delusional state, is troubling and should be a concern to everyone. The implications of such behavior is clearly visible now, those wars are not based on non-believe, they are based on religious ideologies at there core. Those who have pushed for those battles are "G-d fearing" individuals, those who are pushing back are also "G-d fearing" individuals. They all however share the same basic ideology, all worship the same megalomaniac g-d whom they claim tells them to act in one manner or another (Attack this country and I will reward you in heaven) or (strap these bombs to yourself and become a Martyr which I will then send you to paradise)...Pat Robertson and the like are bloody insane and people who believe that he has a direct line to g-d are also trapped in a severly and mentally corrosive delusion. Is there any hope for them? I think not, those people are lost.

This matter of non-theist being fundamentalist, has no ground to stand on. Its about time that those who so not share in religious ideologies to stand up and shout. I for one can no longer sit back and watch the world continue to be over run with belief systems that will, if left to continue to run a-muck, bring us all to our doom.

Religion has not done as much good as one is left to think, just ask the Catholic Church about its South American missionaries that tell people NOT to use contraceptives. If that were the case I would think that the millions that the Church hordes would be used to end poverty and illness, but that would incline that the head shaman to give up his Benz and million dollar home or even close his diamond mining operations in Africa. Religion is a tool, a tool to manipulate people into doing what the shaman wants and what they want is more $$$$, preferably yours and obedience. If religion was left to be a private matter, like that of bedroom affairs, then 99% of the problems in the world would be non-existent. Instead of wasting time and resources on Church, that time and those resources should be used to do real good in the world.

Religion, I am afraid, is social poison which needs a remedy injection of reality and that comes in the form of vocal non-theist.

[kwassa]

25. These Dawkins evangelists get on my nerves.

Always proselytizing, up on their soapbox, bothering people.

[Evoman]

26. Yes, its especially annoying when they come door to door, take over TV sunday mornings, and get

their views all over TV.

Oh wait.

[Goblinmonger]

44. I'm sorry kwassa

we atheists will just shut up now and stop bothering you theists so that you can go about your preaching.

Do you even realize your hypocracy or are just that obtuse?

[kwassa]

56. I was making a joke.

and what hypocrisy would you be talking about?

[Goblinmonger]

60. I apologize for missing the sarcasm.

Usually I am pretty good at picking up on that. In my defense, sometimes the anti-atheist/Dawkins comment would be something you might say.

[struggle4progress]

19. The flaws in Dawkin's view are really very elementary:

First, despite what people may say, it is extremely common for people to decide upon their course of behavior and then to rationalize their decisions to make those decisions sound high-minded or rational or inevitable. People very often decide to do, based upon what is conventional or convenient or comfortable. After having decided upon the course of action that does not offend their social circle, or that is easy, or that makes them feel good physically or emotionally, people then look for a reason justifying the behavior. An allegedly religious justification offered for a behavior does not mean that the behavior was chosen on religious grounds, any more necessarily than an allegedly ethical or scientific rationalization would mean that the behavior was actually chosen for ethical or scientific reasons. In short: we humans lie to ourselves, and to other people, quite frequently about why we do things. I do not claim that such dishonesty is inevitable, or that it is impossible for humans to choose what they do on the basis of ethical or logical or religious or scientific considerations -- I only claim that making such choices honestly requires a critical self-examination which involves considerably more effort than dishonest after-the-fact rationalization.

Second, people frequently attempt to con other people and go to some lengths to prepare "off-the-shelf" justifications that their marks can adopt as an excuse for going along with the con. Such "off-the-shelf" justifications function in the manner just described: namely, they allow the mark to rationalize the decision to enter the con game as a willing participant, by providing a pre-packaged excuse for the chosen behavior.

It's always easier to see these in other people than to see them in ourselves and it's easier to see the process in a different culture than to see it in our own. But as an example, consider institutionalized racism in apartheid South Africa or in America's Jim Crow South. A real reason many people bought into the racism was that it guaranteed the existence of an "untouchable" underclass, whose labor was exploited, providing economic benefits to those who did not belong to the underclass. Almost nobody, who reaped the benefits of that system, spoke honestly about it. Instead, the system was garbed with layers of dishonest rationalization: the underclass was said to be morally inferior and lazy; the underclass was said to be scientifically inferior and unintelligent; the underclass was said to be religiously inferior and marked "with the sign of Cain." Such racist nonsense, presented as obvious ethical or scientific or religious explanation for inevitability of the class system, was essentially impervious to any intellectual assault of any sort -- because the dishonest rationalization of the status quo was not the real reason for the status quo and had very little to do with actual decisions that people made to support the system.

Religious self-justification does not differ very much from other forms of self-justification, and the use of religious notions to manipulate other people does not differ much from other forms of manipulation. None of the deranged phenomena, which Dawkins attributes to religion, would disappear if religion were to disappear completely: the dishonest self-justifications and dishonest manipulations of others would simply be expressed by different terminology, say, in the language of ethics or in the language of logic or in the language of science or ...

[Silent3]

20. Sounds more like a flaw in your view of Dawkins' view

First and foremost, Dawkins is saying that he thinks religion is a delusional form of thinking. One can make that case completely apart from whether or not the delusion has beneficial, harmful, or neutral side-effects, and completely apart from what other justifications for bad behavior might take the place of religion in its absence.

Dawkins is also making the point that religion doesn't deserve the automatic deference and respect it is often granted, even by many non-believers. When people utter something crazy sounding, and say this is an expression of, for example, political philosophy or their take on science, other people are more likely to scoff, demand a good explanation, ask for proof, etc., etc., than when the craziness is "explained" as being "my religion" -- that often ends a conversation, as if a special sanctuary for weirdness and even downright stupidity had been invoked.

You are correct that people will, with or without religion, always be clever at coming up with fancy rationalizations for bad things they want to do. But you're speaking as if Dawkins claimed that by getting rid of religion that all such bad behavior would completely go away. That's a straw man argument, because Dawkins never claimed any such thing. You're extending Dawkins' argument to a cartoonishly ridiculous black-and-white extreme, and then blaming him for your own unfairly extreme take on that argument.

Would the types of bad things done in the name of religion become less common, less frequent, and less intense in the absence of religion? I would agree that Dawkins is making such a claim, or at least saying that he believes it's very likely to be true (and I'd agree) we'd see a reduction, to some degree, in the kind of violence and oppression which is now done in the name of religion as the influence of religion itself is reduced. Religion excuses, and even glorifies and honors, stupendously irrational thinking, irrational thinking which is very useful and extremely convenient for constructing excuses for inflicting suffering upon others.

It's not enough to make the entirely true observation that people can find and will non-religious excuses for these kinds of things. The question is can people do so as readily, as frequently, with as much power to influence others with the "righteousness" of their actions, and with as much automatic sanctuary from debate as the excuse of religion provides?

[struggle4progress]

23. Dawkin's remark, that "Your president is told by God to invade Iraq" indicates

that Dawkins thinks religious belief underlies the American invasion. But such religious babble from Bush is really nothing more than a rationalization for a decision made on other grounds -- just as the claim that Iraq had WMDs or the claim that America was invading to end torture and establish democracy in Iraq or the claim that the real purpose for the Iraq war was to lure terrorists to fight them "there instead of here" were all dishonest rationalizations. The large number of conflicting rationalizations offered for the war show clearly that tremendous intellectual resources have been flexibly used to mystify the decision to make war, but the decision was made on other grounds. Such a war was likely to occur, independent of Bush's religious blather and perhaps independent of even Bush himself: many people who looked at oil production projections thirty or forty years ago expected US corporate interests to push for a Middle Eastern war near the turn of the century for reasons associated only with America's petroleum economy. Is there any real reason to think, for example, that the violence associated with such a resource war would have been reduced to some degree (as you claim) if Bush had used any religious language?

Similarly, Dawkins claims "... moderate religion makes the world safe for extremist religion by teaching that religious faith is a virtue, and by the immunity to criticism that religion enjoys. That immunity extends to extremists like Osama Bin Laden and that dreadful man who goes around saying, 'God hates fags' ..." This automatic deference claim is highly suspect, at best: I frankly doubt whether Dawkins has encountered any significant number of people who refuse to criticize bin Laden because they consider religious faith a virtue; certainly, I have never encountered anybody who holds such a view. America's very limited tolerance of Fred Phelps and other such nauseating personalities flows from a cultural commitment to freedom of speech, not from any popular view that Phelp is beyond criticism because he is expressing a "religious" idea. In short: it's intellectually dishonest to blame religious moderates for the psychotic behaviors of extremists who use religious language.

Such claims by Dawkins' claims are of course consisternt with a tidbit he approvingly quotes from elsewhere: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion." You say ... you're speaking as if Dawkins claimed that by getting rid of religion that all such bad behavior would completely go away. That's a straw man argument, because Dawkins never claimed any such thing ... But of course that's exactly what the quote says and Dawkins in the interview does not distance himself from it at all. There's just no evidence that ordinary people, always inclined to do both good and evil, and always inclined to rationalize their choices with high-falutin' words, would suddenly cease to do evil and learn to do good if religion suddenly disappeared: rather, most of us would simply rationalize our bad choices using some other non-religious high-falutin' language

[Silent3]

27. Let's look at that quote...

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

The above is simply Dawkins paraphrasing a quote I've heard elsewhere (I'm not sure who originally said it). Just because Dawkins doesn't go out of his way "distance himself" from your excessive take on these words, as if he'd said "Religion is ABSOLUTELY the ONLY WAY that good people do evil things" is hardly noteworthy.

Just imagine yourself walking up to Dawkins and asking, "Mr. Dawkins. Is it your stance that if we ended all religion that all good people everywhere would UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY cease to find rationalizations for doing terrible things?" If you imagine him replying, "Yes! I'm absolutely certain of that!" then I don't think you have a clue about what the man is like. You simply want to turn him into a caricature you can easily attack.

I personally can't imagine Dawkins making anything other that a measured speculation that such evils would be reduced, not eliminated. You're attempting to saddle Dawkins with an absolutism which simply isn't there, and then hang him for it.

[struggle4progress]

28. Res ipsa loquitur. Dawkins happily scatters that quote across his website:

It's there as #51 in his Quotes of Note list ( http://richarddawkins.net/quotes ) that cycles over the left side of his webpages, where it is guaranteed to be seen.

Root of All Evil? Part 2: The Virus of Faith
Richard Dawkins - Channel 4
... Physicist and Nobel prizewinner Stephen Weinberg describes religion as an insult to human dignity. 'Without it,' he says, 'you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.' Dawkins agrees ...
http://richarddawkins.net/article,106,Root-of-All-Evil-Part-2-The-Virus-of-Faith,Richard-Dawkins---Channel-4

In the interview at hand, offered the option to discourse on this quote he loves so much, Dawkins simply opts to discuss something else.

Atheist Richard Dawkins on 'The God Delusion'
by Terrence McNally, AlterNet
... TM: You quote physicist Steven Weinberg: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion." ...
http://richarddawkins.net/article,542,n,n

[Silent3]

29. So, he likes the quote? So what?

The more he likes the quote, the more extreme an interpretation of the quote he must be asserting?

In that interview you linked to, the interviewer quotes the quote, then turns the conversation another direction before Dawkins is given a chance to reply:

TM: You quote physicist Steven Weinberg: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

You open the book marveling at the wonders of existence. You end it writing about your personal experience of awe and transcendence. You also write eloquently about this in a previous book, Unweaving the Rainbow.

RD: Unweaving the Rainbow, which I wrote in the late '90s...

Ah, yes! Just look at that terribly suspicious avoidance! The last thing the interviewer mentions is Dawkins' book, Unweaving the Rainbow, and Dawkins replies talking about the very same book! That devious, slippery bastard! :eyes:

[struggle4progress]

31. In another interview I linked to, Dawkins agrees with the quote.

So :eyes: back at ya

[struggle4progress]

30. Here's an interview where Dawkins says "It would be paradise on earth" if ...

"all children were raised without religion" : http://salmonriver.com/environment/dawkinsinterview.html

In that interview, Dawkins predicts "Obviously nothing like 9/11" could happen in such a world "because that's clearly motivated by religion." This claims seems extremely simple-minded to me, and I consequently doubt whether Dawkins has any genuine insights into the psychology of the lunatics associated with the 9/11 hijacking. Dawkins certainly seems to have no interest whatsoever in any political beliefs or economic experiences the hijackers may have had but is content to say I heard reports of some religious language .. Aha! Well, that settles the matter!. But that is a profoundly unscientific approach from someone who prides himself on his supposedly scientific attitude: Dawkins simply assumes the answer to the important question What leads people to make such murderous suicidal choices? as he rushes off to grind his axe.

[Silent3]

35. Things like suicide attacks...

...would be greatly, greatly reduced in the absence of religion. Without religion, there would still remain selfish reasons for hurting and repressing other people, but when you remove religion from the picture -- and the related religious concepts of an afterlife in which one will receive a great reward for one's atrocities -- the appeal of killing yourself in the process of killing and hurting others is significantly diminished, as is the social support of people cheering you on to perform such "holy" acts.

You expect some sort of laboratory experiment on suicide bombers before Dawkins can argue such a thing? Doesn't it seem obvious that it would be much harder to organize an attack using a group of suicidally depressed people, and keep them focussed on a complex task, than it is to keep religious zealots going, whose friends and families urge them on as heroes?

There are certain realms where data is lacking, and either can't be gathered or could only be gathered by means of highly unethical experiments. The best anyone can do then is extrapolate from what is known, and with what is known about evils committed in the name of religion, and seeing the good deeds often attributed to religion still carried out by people who lack religion, it's a perhaps arguable, but still fair extrapolation Dawkins makes.

Most of us here, being Democrats, strongly favor seeing an increase in the minimum wage. None of us, however, can prove conclusively that an increase in the minimum wage will have a beneficial effect. Even things that tend to show benefit -- such as results in states where the minimum wage has been increased above the federal level -- don't prove what will happen when you do the same thing at the federal level.

The difference between a scientist and a non-scientist isn't that scientists conclusively try to prove, nor or they obligated to prove, their every utterance. A good scientist simply starts with a firmer foundation in logic and in facts which are provable from which to extrapolate. No one at all anywhere can talk about what they they will make the world a better place without a lot of extrapolation and guesswork.

At any rate, more of what you linked to, which supposedly supports your position:

Sheahen: ...In your letter to daughter, you ask her to examine what she's told based on evidence. What do you hope the world would be like if all children were raised without religion, according to your theories?

Dawkins: It would be paradise on earth. What I hope for is a world ruled by enlightened rationality, which does not mean something dull, but something of high artistic value. I just wish there were the slightest chance of it ever happening.

Note that the question is "what do you hope for", and Dawkins' answer includes the words "ruled by enlightened rationality". "Enlightened rationality" would mean more than just the absence of religion, but the absence of extreme political and social ideologies as well -- Dawkins clearly would not consider a world filled with non-religious racism, non-religious political oppression, and non-religious slavery one "ruled by enlightened rationality".

I think Dawkins believes, and I tend to agree, that the more religion is diminished, by means of promoting rational thinking, the more other irrational human tendencies would be reduced too, because people in general would become more demanding of rationality in the political and social realms when they lose the habit of staring blinding irrationality in the face, and not even blinking, as is required to accept religious views as "reasonable".

[struggle4progress]

36. You're assuming that the major motive for suicide attacks is religious;

Dawkins assumes the same -- and you claim eliminating religion would effect a major reduction in such events. But that is merely an assumption -- which requires somewhat more evidence than bald assertion to render it credible. The targets of the 9/11 hijackers, for example, had no obvious theological significance but were symbols of American economic, military, and political hegemony: the WTC, the Pentagon, and allegedly the Capitol or White House

Published on Monday, June 6, 2005 by the Baltimore Sun
To Stop Suicide Bombings, Bring Troops Home
by Steve Chapman

Suicide bombings are part of a conscious strategy that has a record of success in other places. Suicide bombing has gained adherents not because so many fanatics are looking for an excuse to throw away their lives, but because it works.

That's the conclusion of Robert Pape in his new book, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Mr. Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism at the University of Chicago, compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack in the world from 1980 to 2003.

Americans have trouble imagining how the insurgents could hope to succeed without any positive vision of Iraq's future - and without any apparent agenda except slaughtering people. But the core of their appeal is the same as that of most other suicide bombing campaigns: nationalistic opposition to a foreign military presence.

"From Hezbollah in Lebanon to Hamas on the West Bank to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka," Mr. Pape writes, "every group mounting a suicide campaign over the past two decades has had as a major objective - or as its central objective - coercing a foreign state that has military forces in what the terrorists see as their homeland to take those forces out." Even 9/11 was part of al-Qaida's long-standing effort to force the United States to withdraw its forces from Saudi Arabia ...

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0606-23.htm

DYING TO WIN
WHY SUICIDE TERRORISTS DO IT

In Dying to Win Robert Pape presents the findings of the first comprehensive database of every suicide terrorist attack in the world from 1980 until today. Discrediting widely-held misconceptions on suicide terrorism, he creates for the first time a clear psychological, sociological and strategic profile for combating suicide attacks. His thesis — initially based on the 354 attacks throughout the world up to 2003 — has been remarkably born out by the ones that have followed (the 192 attacks from 2004 up to May 2006 are included in Dying to Win). Pape also examines the early practitioners of this guerrilla tactic, including the ancient Jewish Zealots, who in A.D. 66 wished to liberate themselves from Roman occupation; the Ismaili Assassins, a Shi’ite Muslim sect in northern Iran in the eleventh and twelfth centuries; World War II’s Japanese kamikaze pilots, three thousand of whom crashed into U.S. naval vessels; and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a secular, Marxist-Leninist organization responsible for more suicide terrorist attacks than any other group in history.

Democracy is the solution
Damian Thompson
Saturday 13 August
Daily Telegraph

... Although Pape recognises that the terrorists are likely to be Muslims, and that there is cross-pollination between extremists, he is not convinced that Islamism is a unified global ideology. If it were unified, he says, then one would expect al-Qa'eda to have attacked Israel, or Hamas to have attacked America. He also rejects the assumption that the root cause of the epidemic of suicide bombings that began in the 1980s is fundamentalism. Many of the Palestinian fanatics who blow up innocent people in Israel are nationalists, not Islamists; they do not expect to be rewarded in the afterlife. Nor do the Tamil Tigers, atheists who hold the world record for the number of suicide attacks.

Pape has subjected a database of more than 300 suicide murderers to meticulous multivariate analysis. His conclusion is that most of them were inspired by an anti-colonialist agenda that can (but need not) be combined with religious zealotry. The real objective of al-Qa'eda terrorists, including British ones, is the "liberation" of territory from US-supported regimes. And it is this primacy of land over faith that explains why support for suicide bombings among Palestinians is far higher than support for Islamism. Most suicide bombers kill themselves because they know they will be celebrated as freedom fighters by their communities; doe-eyed virgins don't figure in their calculations ...

Israel must agree to a ceasefire or Hizbullah will prosper.
Paul Gillespie
12 August 2006
Irish Times

... Dying to Win finds most of them are secular; part of organised groups, not individuals; overwhelmingly motivated by nationalist demands for self-determination, not religious fundamentalism; and their actions are overwhelmingly directed against foreign occupations. It follows that withdrawal is the best way to avoid such atrocities. "The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian peninsula," he said in an interview last year, "the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether this is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack or a biological attack." Pape is no radical fellow-traveller, but a political supporter of George Bush who previously worked at the US air force's school of advanced air and space studies ...

What we still don't understand about Hizbollah
Robert Pape
Sunday August 6, 2006
The Observer

... Researching my book, which covered all 462 suicide bombings around the globe, I had colleagues scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and biographies of the Hizbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. We were shocked to find that only eight were Islamic fundamentalists; 27 were from leftist political groups such as the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union; three were Christians, including a female secondary school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

What these suicide attackers - and their heirs today - shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hizbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force ...

There is not the close connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism that many people think. Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist campaigns have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland ...

http://www.gibsonsquare.com/Dying-to-Win.html

[Silent3]

37. But it's still religion...

...That makes these people believe that they'll magically awake in paradise after performing these heinous acts. It's religion that binds the support structures behind these people, which helps convince them that the random slaughter of innocents can somehow justified, not merely as retribution against a mere political or economic wrongs, but as Holy Acts done in response to Offenses Against God. It's religious organizations which guarantee that family members left behind by suicide bombers will be looked after and taken care of.

Most human beings don't savagely harm other human beings without first constructing some internal rational for the rightness of their terrible acts. History show religion to be a plentiful and reliable source for such justifications, a source more powerful than any other.

These terrorists might not always share a common basic in Islamic fundamentalism, or even Islam, but I challenge you to find out what percentage of those "martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and biographies" aren't filled with invocations of God and God's Will and talk of Holy Causes.

And you still aren't addressing the fact that Dawkins clearly said that "enlightened rationalism", not merely a lack of religion, was key to his hopes for a better world.

[struggle4progress]

38. Well, you evidently didn't read the posted material before responding:

what's there says religion is seldom an issue and claims that the non-religious LTTE suicide squads kill more than anybody else ...

[Silent3]

39. The posted material only says...

...that the strongest commonalities are political ones, rather than one particular brand of religion. That is not the same as saying religion doesn't play an important and major role. Tell me, just how many atheist suicide bombers are there? How many of the suicide bombers don't invoke God's name to justify their actions? How many don't think God is going to reward them for their "noble" sacrifices?

[kwassa]

61. How many nationalist suicide bombers are there?

Many more than religious, according to these studies.

to requote:
"Researching my book, which covered all 462 suicide bombings around the globe, I had colleagues scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and biographies of the Hizbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. We were shocked to find that only eight were Islamic fundamentalists; 27 were from leftist political groups such as the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union; three were Christians, including a female secondary school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon."

Religion is clearly not the motivation. Leftists are virtually always secular, and the Christians were going against Catholic dictates by committing suicide.

You and and-justice-for-all are reducing to one single factor a tactic that has been used by many different groups, for different motivations, many having nothing to do with religion.

Even Osama bin Laden has stated his purpose as a political one; to get the West out of Saudi Arabia, and to overthow the ruling family.

[and-justice-for-all]

54. Yes, religion is the primary motive for such behavior...

...The WTC are symbols of US economic superiority, but behind that was an idea pressed upon those hijackers through the means of religion. They were smart and educated individuals who were lead to their end through religious persuasion and for a reward that does not exist.

When an entire region, or group of people, is easly convinced by that religion/faith that they can get to paradise or heaven through violence through their aggressors demise, then I will say that religion is the major issue.

Jesus Camp would also be a good example. Nothing like a bunch of brainwashed children for the next generation is there? or perhaps the GODHATESAMERICA.com folks.

Religion I am affraid is a major, major problem in society. It contributes to most of the ills of the world, because it surely does not help at all.

[and-justice-for-all]

32. Its not a Dawkins quote...its a Steven Weinberg quote...

And an accurate observation too.

[Zhade]

40. I really prefer the term "god-free".

It's more honest a term than "godless".

[Danger Mouse]

48. Richard Dawkins = Instant Flamewar.

:popcorn:

[and-justice-for-all]

53. But its a necessity that has to happen...

..otherwise we will never work through it..

[cosmik debris]

58. Some flames burn brighter than others. n/t