Richard Dawkins: The smallest signs of retreat

I don't suppose they realize that most people are probably watching this tennis match with something akin to amusement at the human capacity to be utterly ridiculous... when they're not sickened by it to the point of not listening at all, that is.

very well put lrob. It can indeed be amusing at times when supporters of myths from both sides start getting more ridiculous as each tries to score a point off the other.

I do agree with the bottom line in this article. We all do need some kinda myths to cling on to. There's an element of mystery attached to myths for each of us and I think the mind needs those shades of grey to continulaly feed the imagination. The most imaginative and creative mind does not work as well in a pure black & white environment as it does with lots of mystery, mystique and questions. It is the way that the mind keeps searching for more. More questions as well as more answers.

As always, just my view.

Good seed for thought Matt. As always.

OK, I've already explained why I think attacking religion is unavoidable. You have to attack. Otherwise you won't prove any point. Building science systematically up won't help either (although it is desirable). Which leads us to another mentioned point. These two systems don't play together on the same playground.
Oh, I almost forgot another "pearl" of Ms. Bunting. Kids may burn churches because of Dawkins' books? Another ignorant (this time I'll use it) hit that missed any point for a mile and is set in a fashionable "fundamentalist" discourse. Kids who manage to go through his books mainly used their own common sense and probably are not forced to read the books. While kids who are taught (not seldom forcefully) various scriptures that addressed their emotions of duty/pride/belonging to a nation/(fill in the blank) tend to bash a few gay people and crash a few planes.
Accusing atheists for fundamentalism is highly ridiculous compared to the religious fundamentalism. (And why this word has become so popular these days?)

That's why Dawkins seems to "attack" religion. But he does, for a good reason too. (explanation further down bellow)

There is a general and a preposterous misconception of religion and belief. These are not same things and are not interchangeable.

If anyone were to ask me, I'd say religion and belief are the same things and - alas - there's the rub. I will personally question a 'belief' (even my own) in a heartbeat because a belief is nothing more than an idea that someone has adopted as his or her own.

If Dawkins were criticizing only religion (which, I've stated - not argued - many times is the rigid institution of a set of ideas) OR (at the very least) religious fundamentalism or zealotry, I doubt anyone would be making a peep. But he - and others - are most emphatically not criticizing or even "attacking" only religion. They are also (intemporately) attacking 'faith'. While some may have it in mind that the word 'faith' is being "equivocated upon" here and there, the very simple fact is that we all have faith in something - whether it be humanity's capacity to grow beyond a state of infancy and/or adolescence, love, truth, goodness, justice, science, reason, the greater good (a plan of action that benefits all of society) or some of all of the above.

People like Dawkins never ask religious people, "What do you mean by 'faith'?" They assume just as religious fundamentalists assume everyone should be of their "clan" or mode of thinking. And if there's anything that chaps my ass it's arrogance, assumption and/or presumption. The only thing I hate is unmitigated hatred. The only thing I hold in contempt is unmitigated contempt. The only thing I can't tolerate is unmitigated intolerance. And the only thing to which I will give no power is anyone or anything that wishes to control my own heart, mind and conscience. (Know where I picked that up? You'd be amazed: The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Seems he didn't die for anyone's sins after all. Rather, he was a revolutionary who lived to free hearts and minds from the influence, power and control of other people.)

Dawkins, et al are perfectly welcome (in my book) to question religious tenets of belief. Tenets of belief - no matter what kind they are - need to be questioned continually, imo.

As an example, Dawkins says:

You'd never speak of a "Marxist child" or a "monetarist child". So why give religion a free pass to indoctrinate helpless children? There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents.

Sorry. *Bull@!$%#.* There is such a thing as a Marxist child or a monetarist child. If a child is brought up by a Marxist or monetarist father/mother I can all but guarantee that child will be a fundamentally Marxist or monetarist child unless... that child questions what s/he believes and determines whether s/he believes it for good reason or because "Dad (or Mom or my pastor or my mentor or some ancient text) said it was so."

If - on the other hand - Dawkins were to question the "rapture doctrine" (or a variety of other such nonsense), I'd be right there with him to cite the history and origin of that vision of a sick, 15-year old girl named Margaret McDonald, made famous by one John Darby. I'd further posit that just because Tim LaHaye went to divinity school doesn't mean he knows jack @!$%# about the future and if anyone who does believe that pile of crap wants to prove to me they believe in God, they'll show me a little faith in their God - not Tim LaHaye or conservative Republicans or the nation of Israel. And while they're at it, I'd prefer (though do not demand) they extricate Jesus' teachings of love and compassion for one's fellow man along with his rejection of religious laws, rules and regulations from the bounds of religion and never speak of them again as if they were a religion because - quite frankly - they aren't.

Dawkins' remark about catholic and Muslim children is actually about the language. And it is explained in the analogy of homosexual/gay linguistic issue. A consciousness raising through the language. Kids are being brought up in a variety of ideologies. And it is not a question if there is a Marxist or a monetarist child. There probably is. It is a problem of calling them that way and primarily defining them by their parent's ideology in a social context. The obvious truth is: you have never heard of Marxist child or a monetarist child in the newspaper. But you have definitely heard of Muslim or Catholic kids.

Didn't this conversation about the difference between religion and belief go on around Newsvine back in May? Just wondering.

Scientific research can only test what the senses can detect. We could all list times that our senses have deceived us, because our senses (even the machines we invent to extend our senses) are so limited.

Sure, scientific instruments are limited. But, they constitute the full extent of the most objective knowledge we have of our universe. There is no reason to excuse twisting subjective fantasies into objective descriptions of the Universe, especially when God ventures out of the gaps and begins contradicting scientific evidence.

Dawkins is a great scientist - Why can't he stick to what he does best?

When religion even begins hinting at sticking "to what [it] does best", we can revisit this point.

We actually do, it's just that they are our spirits and miracles.

I'd hardly call a miracle an "instrument." A miracle is at most an anomaly, a phenomenon. Not an instrument.

Everyone can have their own opinion.

Really? So if I had the opinion that Jews are demonspawn, that'd be okay, too? Or, for a less sensational analogue, thinking the Earth is 6,000 years old and fossils were put in the ground by Satan is "just another opinion" that everyone is free to have?

not because God does not exist, but because the solid, physical world is an illusion -- as quantum physics proved long ago

Amen.

I think this is what has us in gridlock. "I'll put my gun down when you do..." We know how that ends. Two dead people.

We were late on even raising our gun for a few centuries.

Simply not responding has proven to be no solution.

I must've missed this:

but because the solid, physical world is an illusion -- as quantum physics proved long ago -- and one must look inside consciousness itself to find what God is about.

Ummm... what? Quantum physics says that our perception of the world is an approximation. I wouldn't call all approximations illusions. Further, no one's been able to show that consciousness exists at all outside of the physical world.

In the words of Niels Bohr, pioneer of 20th century quantum physics,

An independent reality, in the ordinary physical sense, can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation.

1. Niels Bohr, The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, Vol. I, (Woodbridge, Connecticut: Ox Bow, 1987), p.54.

However:

There are now an emerging group of people / scientists who are convinced that we have finally worked out what physical reality is. This knowledge of the Wave Structure of Matter in Space provides us with a 'source code' from which we can deduce the truth as a foundation for acting wisely.

From "On Truth and Reality"

I think we are at the very beginning of some slight understanding of what's going on.