• In total there are 23 users online :: 3 registered, 0 hidden and 20 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am

Dawkins carried away with anti-religion stance?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2200 times
Been thanked: 2201 times
United States of America

Dawkins carried away with anti-religion stance?

Unread post

I recently "Liked" the Richard Dawkins’ Foundation for Reason and Science on Facebook. Many of Dawkins' posts are interesting, but many others seem merely fodder for the anti-religionists. Now, I get that religious thinking is too often anti-science and anti-reason, but I do wonder about Dawkins' stance sometimes. Wouldn't it be better for him to ease off a little?

By the way, I should mention that I think Facebook is about the lamest web site on the planet. But I play along, sometimes reconnecting with old friends, and knowing that it is a medium that tends to promote superficiality and unenlightened thinking. People post a lot of crap on Facebook (myself included I'm sure).

Anyway, a couple of days ago, I "liked" this post from the Dawkins Foundation —a factoid about the connection between Easter and Ishtar. Only it turned out to be a "falsoid." Well, here it is:

Image

Later, something about the connection between Easter and Ishtar seemed a bit off to me, so I did a quick Google search and found this blog. It's a fairly scathing indictment, and appears to be true. I have to wonder about Dawkins being so anti religion to have posted something so stupid in the first place. Not that I think Dawkins really posts anything on Facebook, but the Dawkins Foundation has his name on it, and I would think he would be more careful about quality control. This sort of thing makes atheists look dumb.

To its credit, the Dawkins Foundation has retracted the original Facebook post, but I do agree with the blogger that "spreading this kind of misinformation . . . is just plain irresponsible."
Easter is not named after Ishtar and other truths

If there is one thing that drives me absolutely bananas, it’s people spreading misinformation via social media under the guise of “educating”. I’ve seen this happen in several ways – through infographics that twist data in ways that support a conclusion that is ultimately false, or else through “meaningful” quotes falsely attributed to various celebrities, or by cobbling together a few actual facts with statements that are patently untrue to create something that seems plausible on the surface but is, in fact, full of crap.

Yesterday, the official Facebook page of (noted misogynist and eugenics enthusiast) Richard Dawkins’ Foundation for Reason and Science shared the following image to their 637,000 fans:

Naturally, their fans lapped this shit up; after all, this is the kind of thing they absolutely live for. Religious people! Being hypocritical! And crazy! And wrong! The 2,000+ comments were chock-full of smug remarks about how naïve and stupid Christians were, accompanied by pats on the back for all the atheists who smart enough to see through all the religious bullshit and understand how the evil church had slyly appropriated all kinds of pagan traditions.

And you know what? That’s fine, I guess. I’m all for questioning religion and examining the sociological, historical and anthropological reasons that help explain the hows and whys of our lives today. I’m actually super fascinated by that kind of stuff, even if I do think that there’s a way to discuss it without making yourself sound smarter and more enlightened than the people around you.

But you guys? The image above is rife with misinformation. RIFE, I say.

Let’s start from the top:

This is Ishtar …

Okay, great. So far things are fairly accurate. The relief pictured here, known as the Burney Relief (also called the Queen of the Night relief) is widely considered to be an Ancient Babylonian representation of Ishtar (although some scholars believe that the woman depicted might be Lilitu or Ereshkigal). This relief is currently housed in the British Museum in London, but originates from southern Iraq and is nearly 4,000 years old.

… pronounced Easter.

Actually, in modern English we pronounce it the way it looks. A case could be made for pronouncing it Eesh-tar, but I have yet to come across a credible source that gives the original pronunciation as Easter.

Easter is originally the celebration of Ishtar, the Assyrian and Babylonian goddess of fertility and sex.

Ishtar was the goddess of love, war and sex. These days she is particularly associated with sacred prostitution* (also known as temple prostitution), which, in the religions of the Ancient Near East, took on the form of every woman having to, at some point in her life, go to the temple of Ishtar and have sex with the first stranger who offered her money. Once a woman entered the temple of Ishtar for the purpose of sacred prostitution, she was not allowed to leave until she’d done the deed. I can’t imagine that sacred prostitution sex was ever very good sex, but hey, what do I know? Probably some people were pretty into it – I mean, if you can imagine it, someone’s made porn about it, right?

Anyway, the point I am trying to make here is that, yes, Ishtar was associated with fertility and sex. However, her symbols were the lion, the gate and the eight-pointed star; I can’t find any evidence of eggs or rabbits symbolically belonging to her. And Easter has nothing to do with her.

Most scholars believe that Easter gets its name from Eostre or Ostara, a Germanic pagan goddess. English and German are two of the very few languages that use some variation of the word Easter (or, in German, Ostern) as a name for this holiday. Most other European languages use one form or another of the Latin name for Easter, Pascha, which is derived from the Hebrew Pesach, meaning Passover.

In the Christian Bible, Jesus returned to Jerusalem just before Passover. In fact, in the Gospel according to John, Jesus was killed on the day before the first night of Passover, at the time when lambs were traditionally slaughtered for the Passover feast (because Jesus was the Lamb of God, etc. – SYMBOLISM, Y’ALL). There are a few differing accounts of when Jesus actually died, but most Christian texts, philosophers and scholars agree that it was around the time of Passover. Easter is still celebrated the week after Passover, which is why it’s a different day each year, because the Jewish calendar is lunar rather than solar.

Her symbols (like the egg and the bunny) were and still are fertility and sex symbols (or did you actually think eggs and bunnies had anything to do with the resurrection?).

Actually, according to Jacob Grimm’s Deutsche Mythologie, the idea of resurrection was part and parcel of celebrating the goddess Ostara:

“Ostara, Eástre seems therefore to have been the divinity of the radiant dawn, of upspringing light, a spectacle that brings joy and blessing, whose meaning could be easily adapted by the resurrection-day of the christian’s God. Bonfires were lighted at Easter and according to popular belief of long standing, the moment the sun rises on Easter Sunday morning, he gives three joyful leaps, he dances for joy … Water drawn on the Easter morning is, like that at Christmas, holy and healing … here also heathen notions seems to have grafted themselves on great christian festivals. Maidens clothed in white, who at Easter, at the season of returning spring, show themselves in clefts of the rock and on mountains, are suggestive of the ancient goddess.”

Spring is a sort of resurrection after all, with the land coming back to life after lying dead and bare during the winter months. To say that ancient peoples thought otherwise is foolish, naïve and downright uninformed. Many, many pagan celebrations centre around the return of light and the rebirth of the land; these ideas are not new themes in the slightest.

And yes, rabbits and eggs are fertility symbols, and they are, in fact, associated with Eostre.

Hey! Guess what language Constantine, the Roman Emperor, spoke? Not English, that’s for sure! In fact, when he was alive, English didn’t even exist yet. He would have spoken Latin, so would likely have referred to Easter as Pascha.

But at its roots Easter (which is pronounced Ishtar) was all about celebrating fertility and sex.

Look. Here’s the thing. Our Western Easter traditions incorporate a lot of elements from a bunch of different religious backgrounds. You can’t really say that it’s just about resurrection, or just about spring, or just about fertility and sex. You can’t pick one thread out of a tapestry and say, “Hey, now this particular strand is what this tapestry’s really about.” It doesn’t work that way; very few things in life do.

The fact is that the Ancient Romans were smart when it came to conquering. In their pagan days, they would absorb gods and goddesses from every religion they encountered into their own pantheon; when the Roman Empire became Christian, the Roman Catholic Church continued to do the same thing, in a manner of speaking.

And do you know why that worked so well? Because adaptability is a really, really good trait to have in terms of survival of the fittest (something I wish the present-day Catholic Church would remember). Scratch the surface of just about any Christian holiday, and you’ll find pagan elements, if not a downright pagan theme, underneath.

Know what else? Most Christians know this. Or, at least, most of the Christians that I’m friends with (which is, admittedly, a fairly small sampling). They know that Jesus wasn’t really born on December 25th, and they know that there were never any actual snakes in Ireland, and they know that rabbits and eggs are fertility symbols. But they don’t care, because they realize that religions evolve and change and that that’s actually a good thing, not a bad thing. The fact that many Christian saints are just re-imagined pagan gods and goddesses doesn’t alter their faith one iota; because faith isn’t about reason or sense, it’s about belief.

Look, go ahead and debate religion. Go ahead and tell Christians why what they believe is wrong. That’s totally fine and, in fact, I encourage it. A little debate and critical thinking are good for everyone. But do it intelligently. Get to know the Bible, so you actually know what you’re disagreeing with when you form an argument. Brush up on your theology so that you can explain why it’s so wrong. And have some compassion, for Christ’s sake – be polite and respectful when you enter into a debate, even when the person you’re debating with loses their cool. You want to prove that you’re better, more enlightened than Christians? Great, do it by remaining rational and level-headed in the face of someone who’s willing to stoop to personal attacks. To behave otherwise is to be just as bad as the people you’re debating.

Anyway, I hope you guys have a fantastic long weekend, no matter how you spend it. If your holiday involves chocolate, then I hope you enjoy that. If not, just enjoy the extra day or two off work and the (hopefully) warm weather. No matter what you believe in, I think that we can all agree that the end of winter and the rebirth of spring is worth celebrating.

And also? Richard Dawkins? You need to fact-check yourself before you fact-wreck yourself. Spreading this kind of misinformation to your foundation’s 637,000 fans is just plain irresponsible, especially coming from someone like you. Get with the program, buddy.

ETA: The post now seems to be removed from The Richard Dawkins’ Foundation for Science and Reason’s FB page. Thanks Richard!

*It should be noted that the only actual historical evidence that we have of sacred prostitution comes from Herodotus (I’ve included an excerpt from Herodotus’ Histories below) and no one is really sure how accurate it is. But it makes for an amazing story (and hey, Herodotus knows more about it than I do), so I decided to mention it here.

The foulest Babylonian custom is that which compels every woman of the land to sit in the temple of Aphrodite and have intercourse with some stranger once in her life. Many women who are rich and proud and disdain to mingle with the rest, drive to the temple in covered carriages drawn by teams, and stand there with a great retinue of attendants. But most sit down in the sacred plot of Aphrodite, with crowns of cord on their heads; there is a great multitude of women coming and going; passages marked by line run every way through the crowd, by which the men pass and make their choice. Once a woman has taken her place there, she does not go away to her home before some stranger has cast money into her lap, and had intercourse with her outside the temple; but while he casts the money, he must say, “I invite you in the name of Mylitta” (that is the Assyrian name for Aphrodite). It does not matter what sum the money is; the woman will never refuse, for that would be a sin, the money being by this act made sacred. So she follows the first man who casts it and rejects no one. After their intercourse, having discharged her sacred duty to the goddess, she goes away to her home; and thereafter there is no bribe however great that will get her. So then the women that are fair and tall are soon free to depart, but the uncomely have long to wait because they cannot fulfil the law; for some of them remain for three years, or four. There is a custom like this in some parts of Cyprus.

That crack about ugly women was totally unnecessary, Herodotus. I am just saying.
http://bellejarblog.wordpress.com/2013/ ... -tell-you/
Last edited by geo on Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2200 times
Been thanked: 2201 times
United States of America

Re: Dawkins carried away with anti-religion stance?

Unread post

Another reason for starting this thread: It's a pretty good blog. Love the "Symbolism, y'all" line.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Dawkins carried away with anti-religion stance?

Unread post

I wonder about him throwing "misogynist and eugenicist" at Dawkins. Even if this were true (and it isn't, to my knowledge), you just don't make such a charge in an offhand fashion.

I agree, though, that anti-religion seems to give some people the idea that they can just make stuff up. Somehow, people who profess to value evidence seem willing to play fast and loose with history. They need to be just as "scientific" in their use of history as in any other field of knowledge.
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Dawkins carried away with anti-religion stance?

Unread post

i always view Dawkins anti-religion aspect as anti-literalist-religion

more anti dimwits that wont think about the possibility that their interpretation of religious texts is tantamount to mental illness.

like christians who think "only historical jesus can save you from the literal fires of hell"

"gays are satanically decieved" etc etc

muslims who think their retarded view of the koran justifies being complete arseclowns for allah etc etc

zionists who think yahweh gave them the holy land etc etc

i dont think Dawkins is against "personal spirituality" but rather against literalist stupidity, because of the immense damage it has done and is currently doing in those and through those too stupid to see how wrong they've got it.

people will read a rant and think it's against all religion of any kind but i think some people realise there is a world of difference between "wow! life has incredible mystery to it!" and "burn in hell you faggot sinner i hope a church bus runs over you" or "i will kill you in the name of allah"
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Dawkins carried away with anti-religion stance?

Unread post

i really believe the distinction needs to be severely, emphatically made between literalism and spirituality

literalists are not spiritual they are wrong! and it's like crapping in the swimming pool, it spoils it for everyone else.
sonoman
All Star Member
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:52 pm
12
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Dawkins carried away with anti-religion stance?

Unread post

This is hilarious! I am the resident anti-atheist Christian here and I fully agree with Richard Dawkins about Easter and Ishtar being intimately connected symbolically to the Christian Easter tradition.

I've encountered the "No, Easter is not Ishtar" apologies many a time and it never washes once you learn Ishtar's relationship to the Jesus Christ mythology. Where was Jesus born? Bethlehem. Where was Tammuz born? Bethlehem. Tammuz's legendary birthplace is in the exact same spot where the Church of the Nativity sits today. Who rescued Tammuz after his three day descent into the Abyss? Ishtar. What planet is associated with Ishtar? Venus. Who does Jesus Christ refer himself to at the end of Revelation? "The bright and morning star" which is? Venus. In fact, all of the Shalom theology of peace is wrapped around Venus where the evening star was wedded to the morning star, the real root of the Song of Solomon revision in the Bible.

One cannot help but notice the angry emphasis about sacred prostitution that is being used to claim Ishtar is not Jesus but the role of Ishtar in saving Tammuz in her three day descent into hell cannot be overlooked. And here's the clincher: "Tammuz" means "twin" in Aramaic and Thomas in the Gospel of Thomas claims to be the twin of Jesus who is also the Morning Star, i.e. the one who save Tammuz and saves himself in the process. It's all about the celestial cycles mythologized by human minds because there really is spiritual communication going on within the very fabric of solar and celestial arrangements and their effects on earthly life, e.g the monumental one of the seasons on earth, especially important being the winter solstice and spring recovery.

Here's what I wrote about the Ishtar and Easter connection around 1998. http://biomystic.org/ishtar.htm
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Dawkins carried away with anti-religion stance?

Unread post

youkrst wrote:i always view Dawkins anti-religion aspect as anti-literalist-religion

more anti dimwits that wont think about the possibility that their interpretation of religious texts is tantamount to mental illness.

like christians who think "only historical jesus can save you from the literal fires of hell"

"gays are satanically decieved" etc etc

muslims who think their retarded view of the koran justifies being complete arseclowns for allah etc etc

zionists who think yahweh gave them the holy land etc etc

i dont think Dawkins is against "personal spirituality" but rather against literalist stupidity, because of the immense damage it has done and is currently doing in those and through those too stupid to see how wrong they've got it.

people will read a rant and think it's against all religion of any kind but i think some people realise there is a world of difference between "wow! life has incredible mystery to it!" and "burn in hell you faggot sinner i hope a church bus runs over you" or "i will kill you in the name of allah"
At this point it might not be clear to most people what brand of religion Dawkins is talking against. I do seem to recall the in The God Delusion he specified the guy-in-sky type of God as his target, although he also said it's a little cheap to hide behind other, vague notions while calling them "God." The problem I think he and anyone else face who use the general term 'religion' in their attacks, is that they appear to be talking about all varieties of that phenomenon--when they can't be. Religion is too far-flung to make it suitable for generalization. We've always got something specific in mind, some image or definite feeling, when we say 'religion.' We ought to always make it clear exactly where we're coming from instead of continuing to rail against (or speak out for) 'religion.'
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2200 times
Been thanked: 2201 times
United States of America

Re: Dawkins carried away with anti-religion stance?

Unread post

There may be an Ishtar connection of sorts. Myths are syncretised (oh yeah!) over time and it's difficult to dismiss one influence in favor of another. I guess I took the Easter = Ishtar comment to be rather simplistic, although maybe eggs and bunnies were associated with Ishtar after all. At this point Dawkins' original post doesn't look that far off the mark. (I'm kind of embarrassed for starting this thread.)

In any event, I think most Christians recognize that bunnies and eggs are not strictly Christian symbols though I do wonder about Dawkins' motivations in posting stuff like that. It seems as if he's deliberately trying to get people riled up rather than simply to question their own beliefs.

I suspect the misogynist/eugenics comment may be a kind of chick vendetta against Dawkins for comments he made that were critical of skeptic Rebecca Watson. Man, start googling that and see how an (arguably) insensitive comment by Dawkins escalated into a major spat within the atheist/skeptic community. I suspect this blogger (who is female) is taking sides which undercuts her own credibility in my opinion, although I still don't know where the misogynist/eugenics comment comes from.

Youkrst makes a very good point. If only Dawkins would clarify that he is arguing against literalism, he might not be such a polarizing figure.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Dawkins carried away with anti-religion stance?

Unread post

geo wrote: Youkrst makes a very good point. If only Dawkins would clarify that he is arguing against literalism, he might not be such a polarizing figure.
If he's allowed his message to drift, then you're right--he should get back to basics. He should make it clear who he quarrels with and who he doesn't (sorry for the poor "grammar"). Maybe the best way to describe Dawkins is that he has the weaknesses of his strengths. There is definitely a need for someone who will be blunt and not hold back where religion is concerned, and I still think his influence has been positive (highly positive when you include his role as science educator). His feeling is that, at a certain point, you need to throw tolerance out the window, and you need to have a certain personality in order to do that publicly. I was reminded of this need just this morning, when my wife, an unusually tolerant sort herself, made a comment about "wacko Catholics." She was reading a newspaper story about the new pope, who's weathering a storm of criticism for such crimes as washing the feet of two Serbian girls (one a Muslim), not wearing an ermine-rimmed red velvet cape, not seating himself in chair on a pedestal, calling for more dialogue with Muslims, and other things just as bad. Benedict had been loved by traditionalists for restoring the glam and glitter to the office of pope, doing the full Elton John thing on stage, and for his doctrinal conservatism. What choice is there but to label that as idiotic pomp and the criticism of Francis as stupidity, or to label as stupid the letters to my local paper that attack another writer for saying the Bible was written down by people with their own ideas. No, they wrote exactly what God told them to write, don't you know. Stupid.

So Dawkins does overstate and exaggerate sometimes. But overall I have to say, god bless him.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
13
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Dawkins carried away with anti-religion stance?

Unread post

It's interesting that this is even in question: Does Dawkins get carried away with his attacks on religion.
Seriously?

Dawkins would be hard pressed to defend himself against claims he engages in scientism with regularity
At this point its almost impossible to determine if Dawkins is more anti religious than he is a scientist
His portrayal of both have become simple caracatures. His visceral hatred of religion, generalized to the extreme, borders the irrational.
To Dawkins, science in general, and Darwinism specifically are a metaphysical framework to attach worldviews not related to the practice of science.

For Dawkins, Darwinism is a secular religion. There can be no coexisting of tradition religion and Darwinian religion in Dawkins world. It's become a religious crusade for Dawkins and his flock to reduce God to something that only science has the authority to prove or disprove by scientific investigation

Also, to Dawkins and his simpleton gullible flock, science also has ultimate authority to judge which "memes" are good and which are bad . To Dawkins, religion is a poisionous plague. An infection passed on to naive children that are at the mercy of parental authority. Religion is bad, without question, to Dawkins
The idea that science can explain all and be a moral/ethical foundation is a good meme.
For according to Dawkins, all ideas are memes, therefore this to is a meme - science and only science can judge as being superior to other memes.

I wonder just who do men like Dawkins, and maybe even a few here think they're fooling.

Like I've said before, Dawkins is a great scientist. He's just a poor philosopher.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”