Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 09-11-2002, 05:13 PM

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,552388,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,552388,00.html</a>

I thought some of the responses made some excellent points.

ie.

Richard Dawkins's obsessive dislike of religion leads him astray (Religion's misguided missiles, September 15). The danger is not religion but fanaticism, which can equally be displayed by atheist communists and by irreligious nationalists. I am sure Dawkins distinguishes between good and bad science. Is he not capable of distinguishing between good and bad religion?
Rev Dr Michael Hinton
Dover, Kent
michael@hintonm.demon.co.uk

Other responses were, um, how can I put this? Totally fucking stupid?

>Professor Dawkins obviously could not resist using the opportunity yielded by this week's horrendous events in New York to proclaim once again his deep-rooted hatred of all religion. Yet Dawkins is himself a zealous, even fanatical, believer in the gospel of Darwinism, whose ugly offspring of racism, nationalism, and fascism have soaked the 20th century in the blood of more than 100m people. There is no doubt that secular religions normally referred to as ideologies have proved themselves far deadlier than misguided theology.
Ahmed El Shamsy, Hassocks, Sussex
A.El-Shamsy@lse.ac.uk

Richard Dawkins is characteristically sneering about religion, but in a bleak and unforgiving world populated by nothing but selfish genes there is simply no response to evil. Neither, significantly, is there any explanation that is at all convincing for the spontaneous and heroic displays of altruism and solidarity that we have seen in New York and elsewhere. If we are going to respond with anything other than a visceral lunge towards revenge and retribution, then the resources of forgiveness that will be needed are those that only some sort of religion, and belief in a loving creator, can unlock.
Rev Jeremy Caddick
Dean, Emmanuel College,Cambridge
jlc24@cam.ac.uk

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

Thor Q. Mada · 09-11-2002, 05:17 PM

Yes, but the response you quote misses one important point: There is no good religion. Religion is a self inflicted medical condition called delusion, and how can such a condition ever be called "good". I can be called "mild". (and still to be kept under surveilance) but that's it.

RufusAtticus · 09-11-2002, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thor Q. Mada:
Yes, but the response you quote misses one important point: There is no good religion. Religion is a self inflicted medical condition called delusion, and how can such a condition ever be called "good". I can be called "mild". (and still to be kept under surveilance) but that's it.

And I can imagine a Fundie saying the same thing about Godlessness.

Thor Q. Mada · 09-11-2002, 05:20 PM

And one more thing: Richard Dawkins is a giant and a genius, and the three poor misguided religious people you quote are just sick.

Thor Q. Mada · 09-11-2002, 05:23 PM

RufusAtticus,

Quote:

And I can imagine a Fundie saying the same thing about Godlessness.

Yes, but his argumentation would be based on irrationality, which you cannot say about anything RD has ever written. It is biased , yes, but for good reasons, which I feel myself, such as despair that after 6000 years of nonsense and no reply from the other side we can still not see the light

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2002, 05:37 PM

I think that the first response is a good point. I am also sure that richard dawkins would agree with it. He considers all religion irrational, as most of us here do, but the issue is clearly fanaticism.

Richard would probably say that the article was specifically directed at dogmatic religionism, which is certianly prevalent all over the world. I have every confidence that he would denounce atheist communist terrorists equally.

scombrid · 09-11-2002, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Richard Dawkins's obsessive dislike of religion leads him astray (Religion's misguided missiles, September 15). The danger is not religion but fanaticism, which can equally be displayed by atheist communists and by irreligious nationalists. I am sure Dawkins distinguishes between good and bad science. Is he not capable of distinguishing between good and bad religion?
Rev Dr Michael Hinton
Dover, Kent

The point about ideological fanaticism is dead on. However, his analogy of science to religion is off. Most often, bad science isn’t actually science. Bad religion is still religion, usually with the same foundations as those perceived as good.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: scombrid ]

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2002, 05:55 PM

Very good point.

Vanderzyden · 09-11-2002, 07:15 PM

Amazing, look what happens when you substitute "Darwinism" for "religion" and the content is easily interchangeable:

Quote:

It's a tall story, but worth a try. You'd have to get them young (i.e. in high school biology class), though. Feed them a complete and self-consistent background mythology (i.e. macroevolution)to make the big lie (common ancestry with apes) sound plausible when it comes. Give them a holy book (The Origin of Species) and make them learn it by heart (i.e. force compliance in peer reviews). Do you know, I really think it might work. As luck would have it, we have just the thing to hand: a ready-made system of mind-control (academic dogmatism)which has been honed over centuries, handed down through generations. Millions of people have been brought up in it (e.g. all too many scientists having very narrowly-constrained training). It is called a religion (namely, Darwinism)and, for reasons which one day we may understand, most people fall for it (nowhere more so than America itself, though the irony passes unnoticed). Now all we need is to round up a few of these faith-heads and give them flying lessons.

Dawkins may be a good zoologist, but he is by no means a genius. Rather, he writes like a disrespectful adolescent prankster.

Vanderzyden

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2002, 07:27 PM

I would like to address something.

Vanderzyden, you are being extremely frustrating. You post several items where an extremely indignant and firey response would be well deserved, but you also make a policy of not engaging anyone who is less that 100% polite. So, if we want our objections to you adressed, we have to ignore half of what you say.

Try being a little more polite yourself, and please make more responses to your critics. Monkensticks challenge about DNA sequence similarities and my own responses to you in the libel thread are both valid responses that you have not responded to.

Also, please be less shocked when someone occasionally gets angry at you, as you are not Mr calm and collected yourself.

09-11-2002, 05:13 PM	#1
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	Richard Dawkins on September 11th <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,552388,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,552388,00.html</a> I thought some of the responses made some excellent points. ie. Richard Dawkins's obsessive dislike of religion leads him astray (Religion's misguided missiles, September 15). The danger is not religion but fanaticism, which can equally be displayed by atheist communists and by irreligious nationalists. I am sure Dawkins distinguishes between good and bad science. Is he not capable of distinguishing between good and bad religion? Rev Dr Michael Hinton Dover, Kent michael@hintonm.demon.co.uk Other responses were, um, how can I put this? Totally fucking stupid? >Professor Dawkins obviously could not resist using the opportunity yielded by this week's horrendous events in New York to proclaim once again his deep-rooted hatred of all religion. Yet Dawkins is himself a zealous, even fanatical, believer in the gospel of Darwinism, whose ugly offspring of racism, nationalism, and fascism have soaked the 20th century in the blood of more than 100m people. There is no doubt that secular religions normally referred to as ideologies have proved themselves far deadlier than misguided theology. Ahmed El Shamsy, Hassocks, Sussex A.El-Shamsy@lse.ac.uk Richard Dawkins is characteristically sneering about religion, but in a bleak and unforgiving world populated by nothing but selfish genes there is simply no response to evil. Neither, significantly, is there any explanation that is at all convincing for the spontaneous and heroic displays of altruism and solidarity that we have seen in New York and elsewhere. If we are going to respond with anything other than a visceral lunge towards revenge and retribution, then the resources of forgiveness that will be needed are those that only some sort of religion, and belief in a loving creator, can unlock. Rev Jeremy Caddick Dean, Emmanuel College,Cambridge jlc24@cam.ac.uk [ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-11-2002, 05:17 PM	#2
Thor Q. Mada Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Asia Posts: 3,558	Yes, but the response you quote misses one important point: There is no good religion. Religion is a self inflicted medical condition called delusion, and how can such a condition ever be called "good". I can be called "mild". (and still to be kept under surveilance) but that's it.

09-11-2002, 05:20 PM	#4
Thor Q. Mada Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Asia Posts: 3,558	And one more thing: Richard Dawkins is a giant and a genius, and the three poor misguided religious people you quote are just sick.

09-11-2002, 05:37 PM	#6
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I think that the first response is a good point. I am also sure that richard dawkins would agree with it. He considers all religion irrational, as most of us here do, but the issue is clearly fanaticism. Richard would probably say that the article was specifically directed at dogmatic religionism, which is certianly prevalent all over the world. I have every confidence that he would denounce atheist communist terrorists equally.

09-11-2002, 05:55 PM	#8
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Very good point.

09-11-2002, 07:27 PM	#10
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I would like to address something. Vanderzyden, you are being extremely frustrating. You post several items where an extremely indignant and firey response would be well deserved, but you also make a policy of not engaging anyone who is less that 100% polite. So, if we want our objections to you adressed, we have to ignore half of what you say. Try being a little more polite yourself, and please make more responses to your critics. Monkensticks challenge about DNA sequence similarities and my own responses to you in the libel thread are both valid responses that you have not responded to. Also, please be less shocked when someone occasionally gets angry at you, as you are not Mr calm and collected yourself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.