ForThoseWhoBurnWitchesInTheNameOfScienceAndEgo - TrampleOnTheDeadOfASocietalSickness

[motherengine]

I am bone-weary of this argument but, unfortunately, I am also a slave to the need to express some final thoughts on the philosophies of Richard Dawkins and others concerning god and religion, consisting of three major points of personal contention.

 

1- polluting the waters: Richard Dawkins’ arguments against organized religion are largely philosophical, not scientific, and so, because of the connection to his status as a respected scientist, his published ideas do a kind of disservice to the field by integrating material suitable only for petty debate into an arena that can but suffer from such prejudicial positions. His views on god and religion are philosophical as opposed to scientific because they follow a personal reaction to a societal reality and formulate based on these views rather then stemming from empirical facts. One cannot, through a non-biased approach to science, acquire the certainty that religion is a dangerous thing. One can come to the conclusion that a certain percentage of people who claim to be religious have done dangerous, things but this is all. If an individual looks to the distortion of the writings of Karl Marx by Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and members of the Khmer Rouge as proof of communism and atheism being a threat to our species then he himself is distorting something to suite an agenda, and the same is true of opponents of religious texts. Absent the ability to probe all human thought in relation to behavior and charting every specific event (both those deemed socially negative and/or positive) as connected to religious activity, and lacking any serious testing concerning socially positive or negative aspects of neurological response to religious views and belief in a personal god force, there can be no empirical validity to the view that religion and belief in god are, in fact, inherently dangerous.

 

2- thinking inside the box: I don’t get the idea that Dawkins is thinking outside of the scope of his own unique perspective. Billions of humans exist and they have varied chemical/neurological states. Just as Picasso could not logically expect all humans to receive the same pleasure and have the same abilities in artistic expression as he did, neither can Dawkins expect the rest of the human race to find the same excitement or ability of understanding in scientific exploration and philosophical intellectualization as he, himself does. While standing at a podium in some university or another [institutions initially supported in the west by the catholic church], can Richard Dawkins- wealthy father and husband, supported and admired by many and free from any major disabilities -even begin to comprehend the reality that there are millions of people just trying to survive and keep sane day to day who simply may not be capable of finding comfort in the atheistic ponderings he proudly promotes? Then there is the very real issue of atheistic views causing varied reactions in different minds. The Marquis de Sade shared many of the same tenets as Richard Dawkins and was equally ruthful in his antagonism concerning orthodox religion, yet de Sade’s direction was of a cruel and selfish hedonistic approach to nihilism rather than Dawkins’ humanistic science as savior position. Though, at least de Sade didn’t attempt to dress his nihilistic views in cheerful colors that deceptively implied atheistic thinking to be some kind of wonder drug for the mind, or stoop to using naïve platitudes to reinforce his personalized beliefs (“limitless possibilities” for an inherently limited species?).

 

3- so what: Now I understand concern for views that one finds unpleasant and combative, but if the human race truly are temporal creatures constructed through a purposeless process of natural selection moving towards an inevitable extinguishment of individual consciousness (and possibility an ultimate extinction of species altogether), than having an extreme sense of urgency and righteousness concerning the human plight just seems absurdist in the scheme of things; as if a father in the front of a car with no steering or brakes, heading toward a cliff, were to turn around and aggressively reprimand his children for playing some particular game which he does not like in the back seat. Intellectually speaking, nihilism does not allow for righteous morality. Without an appeal to a universal mind to acknowledge and enforce it [and one could argue, even with such a force], the conscious construct, in this case moral law, is a matter of subjective truth and individual speculation. The closest any human can come to a moral law is a consensus of primate belief, which is about as empirical a truth as the dictum ‘might is right’. A species without a divine purpose is a species without the need of a savior because any position it finds itself in is as ‘correct’ as any other. Dawkins finds himself in the precarious position of scientific evangelist when he speaks of where humanity should be going because- if humans are not a part of a consciously directed process then life has no definitive direction and Dawkins’ views are no more viable than those of anyone else’s in a universal sense. Absent cosmic direction nature doesn’t ‘want’ to go on living, it simply goes on living because this is the blind process of idiot selection with no bearing on what the more self-aware elements of said process want to believe. There is no weight to moral argument without an outside objective conscious representative. I understand those who find religion intellectually objectionable, but to argue against religion based on moral objection is intellectually questionable at best.

 

Could it be that Mr. Dawkins is simply focusing his attention on a singular symptom of a more formidable disease? Maybe the civilized world is less capable of solving the problems Dawkins’ sees in the aspects of selfishness and hostility in the natural world than it is a causation for more savage behavior then would even exist in the wild, sans man (even in times of drought and starvation the ‘lesser’ animals behave with a kind of biologically necessary viciousness rather than any conscious cruelty). Rather than Hitler as a professed Christian or Stalin as a professed atheist, it is the post stone age man as a general state of being that has developed and nurtured the sadism, cruelty and mass violence which fit nicely into either framework [religion/atheism]. Maybe intellect and self-awareness are aberrant aspects of the natural process which happen to have some positive offshoots concerning comfort and chemical stimulation. Perhaps there is a fundamental flaw inherent in the concept of social morality (though it is unlikely that the human species is capable of functioning without some kind of moral center to adjust behavior). In actuality the problems Dawkins associates with religion probably have more to do with basic animal desires for power/control and issues of territoriality amplified by self-awareness and language which would exist with or without religious influence; not a problem of men in positions of power or religion in politics, but a species problem. Maybe religion is delusion, and delusion is unhealthy and ‘evil’. But then quite possibly- despite the deepest concerns and disgust of some –it is a very necessary evil for a temporal species of biological entities wandering about on one of many stones in an ocean of space with no certain sanctuary from fears of cessation related to an overdeveloped sense of awareness and no certain hope of anything but the offset of technological evolution from biological evolution, the serious probability of inevitable self-annihilation and the steady progression of millions of future dead. Personally, I would rather be delusional.

[Pyrotex]

I ...need to express some final thoughts on the philosophies of Richard Dawkins and others concerning god and religion...

 

(1) there can be no empirical validity to the view that religion and belief in god are, in fact, inherently dangerous...

 

(2) the reality that there are millions of people just trying to survive and keep sane day to day who simply may not be capable of finding comfort in the atheistic ponderings he proudly promotes? ...

 

(3) Intellectually speaking, nihilism does not allow for righteous morality...

 

(4) There is no weight to moral argument without an outside objective conscious representative...

 

(5) Maybe religion is delusion, and delusion is unhealthy and ‘evil’. But then quite possibly- despite the deepest concerns and disgust of some –it is a very necessary evil...

 

(6) Personally, I would rather be delusional.

 

Hello mother engine.

 

Well, quite a large post you have there. And well written, too. Very eloquent, to the point, focused, and actually moderate in tone. My congratulations (no kidding), you've actually made a pro-religion post without it being troll-bait, dim-witted, bitter or even petulant. And yet your anger comes through cleanly, clearly, and without devolving into a tasteless, mud-throwing skreed. Well done. Don't see many posts like yours around here.

 

The only criticism I really have is the title. That IS baiting and it IS baseless name-calling. This IS a well moderated website, and unsubstantiated accusations are frowned on.

 

Just for the record, Science does not "burn witches"--not even figuratively. Those who literally DID burn "witches" (up until the early 18th Century) did so in the name of god.

 

Of course, you probably meant that metaphorically, and you may have been referring to Mr. Dawkins. On the other hand, for about two centuries, christianity in Europe and America has had a relatively free hand in expressing its views and with only a few exceptions (H. L. Mencken comes to mind) has not had to deal with open criticism from the likes of Mr. Dawkins until recently. I dare say, the communal anger of religion for the likes of Mr. Dawkins may just be the result of religion having assumed that it has some "immunity" from the free expression of ideas.

 

Since you have posted your opinions, it is only fair that you receive some response. Here goes:

 

(1) "Ye shall know a tree by its fruit." One of the fruits of organized religion has been organized warfare and carnage on a vast scale. S'fact. Sure, organized politics hasn't done much better.

 

(2) No doubt this is true. My mother is one of them. On the other hand, there are many people who find the concept of "god" oppressive and revolting. Mr. Dawkins' point is that it is unjust for the latter to bow and publicly defer to the former.

 

(3) So much the worse for nihilism. Reality in this real world, however, does allow for the natural development of morality, as it is a form of "behavior". Read Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Wonderful read. Warning: Dawkins and Dennett are good buddies.

 

(4) Morality is, after all, a set of rules of behavior among humans. The often-stated argument that morality is somehow something ethereal, magic, supernatural, etc, that could come about only via an external intelligent agency, is bogus (in that it cannot be logically defended). There are a number of threads here which addresses this precise point. Enjoy.

 

(5) Religion as a necessary evil. :eek: I don't think this needs any comment from me.

 

(6) That is indeed your choice. And welcome to it. :) However, as Mr. Dawkins is trying to point out, though you are free to take on any (legally benign) delusion you wish, that does not give you free reign to impose (or even request) that the legal, social, educational, civil or political structures of the state must acknowledge, acquiesce to, support, defend, or defer to in any way the "validity" of your delusion.

 

Welcome to Hypography, mother engine.

 

Engarde! :)

[quadrapod]

If an individual looks to the distortion of the writings of Karl Marx by Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and members of the Khmer Rouge as proof of communism and atheism being a threat to our species then he himself is distorting something to suite an agenda, and the same is true of opponents of religious texts.

 

You claim that both atheism and communism are threats to humanity as a whole. Could this be only because you have been raised into a sense of security? Could it be possible that the thought of death and the thought of misunderstanding made you accept something? You accepted it for the fact that it explained things that confused you it allowed you to believe when people die they go to heaven and live happily ever after and watch over me and I am safe. When in truth you know that there is a distinct chance that you are wrong and that fear caused you to barrier yourself. You have probable got a rationalization forever aspect of your life and of the world. This causes delusion. Atheism is not the end of humanity. Diluting yourself into believing something is.