Dawkins carried away with anti-religion stance?

[ant]

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."

Oh this is brilliant.

Right!
Do you think Dawkins is unaware that he keeps failing to "clarify"?
Are people really that stupid to think he's forgetting to clarify?

Sam Harris, as I've said before, has begun to seperate himself from that tactic.

That's what I admire about the rational/ logical atheist, they're so perceptive!

[geo]

I guess we can debate whether Dawkins crosses a line, but we can also question whether society is at times generally too tolerant of hatred and prejudice and stupidity whenever it falls under the domain of religious belief. There is a similar question of when does political correctness reach absurd levels. For example, there was a certain backlash against using racial profiling to screen potential terrorists. But obviously there are certain kinds of people who are much more likely to be terrorists. Racial profiling is probably the most effective avenue to find potential terrorists.

Dawkins does put himself on the front line and I tend to appreciate his extreme vocalization while at the same time wish he would tone it down a little. He leaves himself open for quite a lot of criticism and I've heard he receives death threats all the time. Have you seen this latest article in Salon?

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins ... amophobia/

[DWill]

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.

Ant, I'm not saying that one statement can be proof of a stable attitude displayed over the course of 35 years, but look at the end of the last chapter of The Selfish Gene. There Dawkins says explicitly that our task as humans is to consciously work against the dictates of our selfish genes. He comes out as an anti-Darwinian humanist.

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.

It's not quite accurate that he thinks science should select which memes are good and which are bad. The whole meme thing I have problems with, too, and I much prefer the balanced approach to religion of another atheist, Jonathan Haidt.
I'll say what I've already said, Dawkins oversimplifies religion and the motives implicit in religion. Though he has a brilliant mind, like a few other brilliant atheists he does not have a large mind when it comes to all things human.

On the other hand, ant, is Dawkins really a great scientist? I think of great scientists as those who did groundbreaking, primary work in their fields. Has Dawkins done such work? Maybe he is a great synthesizer instead.

[DWill]

I guess we can debate whether Dawkins crosses a line, but we can also question whether society is at times generally too tolerant of hatred and prejudice and stupidity whenever it falls under the domain of religious belief. There is a similar question of when does political correctness reach absurd levels. For example, there was a certain backlash against using racial profiling to screen potential terrorists. But obviously there are certain kinds of people who are much more likely to be terrorists. Racial profiling is probably the most effective avenue to find potential terrorists.

Dawkins does put himself on the front line and I tend to appreciate his extreme vocalization while at the same time wish he would tone it down a little. He leaves himself open for quite a lot of criticism and I've heard he receives death threats all the time. Have you seen this latest article in Salon?

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins ... amophobia/

The article does make him seem illiberal in the extreme. The veering toward far-right positions on race and religion is concerning. It makes me wonder whether 'otherness' is a problem for him, and again I suspect that he may not in certain respects be large-minded or that he may not have a generous spirit towards others.

[geo]

The Dawkins' Foundation post yesterday was a chart that purportedly represents all the contradictions in the Bible. The caption says: "Contradictions in the Bible. Study carefully. You will be tested later." I think what is most annoying is the comments from many, many people saying how stupid believers are, etc.



A more scholarly view is that the Bible--a collection of documents from many cultures and spanning thousands of years--is naturally going to be "inconsistent." So the only purpose to post something like this is to stir things up. Facebook really does appeal to common stupidity. So I guess I wonder what folks here think about posts like these. Is there an attempt to get a dialogue going or merely to show how absurd a literal interpretation of the Bible is . . .

[ant]

Oh Gosh, the hipsters in southern ca are going to have an intellectual midget summit over this one.

[geo]

Oh Gosh, the hipsters in southern ca are going to have an intellectual midget summit over this one.

If you've got nothing to offer, just hit the "no post" button.

[ant]

Oh Gosh, the hipsters in southern ca are going to have an intellectual midget summit over this one.

If you've got nothing to offer, just hit the "no post" button.

Which button is that?

[Dexter]

A more scholarly view is that the Bible--a collection of documents from many cultures and spanning thousands of years--is naturally going to be "inconsistent." So the only purpose to post something like this is to stir things up. Facebook really does appeal to common stupidity. So I guess I wonder what folks here think about posts like these. Is there an attempt to get a dialogue going or merely to show how absurd a literal interpretation of the Bible is . . .

I might agree with you if there wasn't a very significant number of people who take the Bible literally, many of whom are influential in politics, on school boards, and are an influential voting bloc.

Showing the absurdity of a literal interpretation of the Bible is quite appropriate.

Let the moderates explain how the Bible is just allegory written by fallible humans, and have them tell their fellow Christians.

[ant]

many of whom are influential in politics, on school boards, and are an influential voting bloc.

What specific legislation, influenced by a literal interpretation of the bible, are you referring to here?