And yet, it is illegal to carry a knife. We have banned guns. we have banned certain drugs. we have made other drugs technically (albeit not practically) unreachable to minors.
Hmm... Maybe we must be 16 before we encounter RE, of any sort?? Is a half-jokey suggestion, but following Andy's arguments logically... (not that *that* is a common occurrence)
On a slightly more serious note:
Nope.
Context matters - as we discussed when describing how much "weight" to assign to venue reviews. Similarly, as I know that Dawkins comes from a certain point, I'll take his comments with an inbuilt "Dawkins filter".
And I'm still annoyed that I paid good money for the unreadable "God Delusion", it was rubbish.
The reason it is a sloppy argument is because there are people who use things other than religion to blame for their acts. The specific case - that "the name of God can be used to persuade many people to commit atrocities" would be a valid criticism of religion if it can be demonstrated that religion is either the only means available or a significantly effective means than any alternatives. Unfortunately, as I showed with my examples, that is not the case. Unless you can demonstrate that religion is in some substantive way different from other things that motivate people, it's a spurious to use this evidence in an argument against religion. Simply saying, as you've done, that religion has persuaded people to commit atrocities does not establish anything other than religion can be a motivator. As I demonstrated, there are other, equally powerful motivators that debunk the idea that religion has some unique position.
To get back on topic, this sort of flawed argumentation was apparent in the documentary. I can pretty much guarantee that there are science teachers at secular schools who don't have a good grasp of science and cannot answer relatively basic questions regarding the process of evolution. With the same confidence, I can also pretty much guarantee that there are science teachers at faith schools who do have a wonderful grasp of science and who have a rich understanding of evolution. I know that relatively few schools and few teachers actively encourage critical thinking.
Dawkins showed us some obvious flaws in Faith Schools regarding their teaching of science and religion. But he never established if all of these flaws were either unique to or directly caused by them being faith schools or if they were general faults of the education system. That is a rather glaring flaw.
OK. So you're not talking about religion. Given that your whole point was about religion - ie the fact that some people have used religion as an excuse to do bad stuff. If this point isn't actually about religion, then you're saying, some people do bad stuff. Great point - but not a particularly insightful one. And that lack of insight is why I have such a problem with that whole line of arguing - it tells you very, very little that is of any real value.
So: was your point that people do bad stuff? In which case, the only appropriate response, is "yeah, and?" Or was your point that religion causes people do to bad stuff. In which case, the appropriate response is: "prove it."
Hmm... well I think it's quite easy to prove that religious belief has lead to people doing bad things in the name of religion.. but the point you've been making throughout is that people do bad things anyway and if religion wasn't the catalyst for conflict something else would be. And I completely agree with that - if religion didn't exist nations would still be separated by cultural and ethnic differences which would (and does) lead to conflict. Religion is an easy target, but it is way more complex than that...
Dawkins is keen to cite religion as the root of all evil, which is total rubbish of course and completely ignores the millions upon millions of religious people that live in harmony with people of all faiths. Religion gives direction and meaning to many people's lives and also is responsible for extraordinary beauty in the form of architechture, music and litreature that millions of people of all faiths (and yes, even atheists..) have enjoyed for thousands of years..
I'll confess straight off that I've not read the finer details in some of the posts on this thread. But what I have noticed is that the only person in this discussion who seems to have watched the programme in question is Lory.
This must surely make it somewhat difficult for anyone else to actually comment on the content of the programme, beyond one's own opinions on Richard Dawkins' general standpoint and the issue of faith schools.
I watched the programme and have previously watched other programmes he has made. I have not finished reading The God Delusion because I've found it hard going. I do not agree with everything he says, but I enjoy listening to him because it makes me consider standpoints I may not have considered before and enables me to better make my own mind up. In short, it challenges my world view. I do not take on board everything he says but listen critically. I find him an articulate speaker.
I enjoyed the programme and found it less biased and more balanced than some of his others. I found the title rather sensationalist and not entirely descriptive of the content (as has been the way with other tv programmes of late). Obviously the programme advocates that faith schools are not a helpful, constructive addition to society, but I felt this was conveyed in a balanced, reasoned way.
I am reluctant to say more about the content of the programme as I don't wish to spoil it for those who wish to watch it.
Do I agree with him about faith schools? The jury is out for me at the moment, I would tend to agree with another comment in this thread, that they are good for the individual but not so good for society. They can build local communities but could encourage division within wider communities.
You're right (we're agreeing too much in this thread for my liking - I may change my faith). I meant prove it in the context of the fact that citing that religious people have done bad things doesn't actually prove that religion was the primary cause for that action.
The classic example is the Middle East. The Palestinians and the Israelis both want to live on the same piece of dirt. It is, essentially, a tribal conflict (and quite an old one at that). Prior to 1947, the Palestinians were being treated quite badly by the other nations in the Middle East as well. And it's all made more complicated because God decided to put America's oil under their land.
I have a slightly different take on this. Much as people are responsible for bad stuff, they are just as responsible for good stuff. Art, science, culture (and dancing) are manifestations of people and society as much as war and crime are. Under an atheist view, even religion itself is essentially an expression of human behaviour. People want meaning and religion provides it (for many). Theists will tell you that meaning is found in religion/god (usually, that's it's found only in their particular flavour of God). Atheists will tell you we society created the ideas of religion and God to give our lives meaning.
The few genuine nihilists out there will tell you we're all just making it up we're all going to die anyway.
I was not presenting a point. I was presenting a counter-argument to the proposition that religion should be banned.
It strikes me that Geoff is trying to twist what other people have said so that they sound wrong. He is saying that their agument or point is wrong by presenting an arguement or point that is wrong and assigning it to someone who hasn't made that point or argument. Possibly Geoff is intellectually challenged, probably he's being deliberately manipulative to make his own point - or he's a politician.
Resorting to an ad hominem? Interesting...
Since I clearly do not understand what your counter argument actually was, would you care to state it clearly so that I can't misunderstand it? Obviously, given I am too intellectually challenged to do this myself.
Or would you prefer just to leave it as a personal insult? Your call...
If someone sympathises with Prof. Dawkins viewpoints then it doesn't surprise me that they see nothing wrong with his writings. A few years ago one of my friends had been raving about 'The God Delusion', so I picked up a copy in a bookshop to satisfy my curiosity. The best way to describe the style in which it is written would be simply as 'a tirade'. I found his style of writing so nauseating I only managed to read a few pages!
Not everyone regards Buddhism as a religion, same comment also applies to Hinduism. I'd guess his diatribes are directed mainly towards the two largest faiths in the world, Christianity and Islam.
In my rather flippant comment, that wasn’t the connection I was looking to make. Rather, I was pointing out that ‘the lady doth protest too much’. Except, in this case, it is a gentleman by the name of Dawkins who is perhaps protesting a little too much to be considered entirely sincere in his protestations.
I had a quick pre-read in the bookshop before putting it back on the shelf and choosing something else.
Around ten pages was just about all I could stomach of his writings.
* 'the lady doth protest too much' - William Shakespeare, Hamlet
Ah good, we agree on this at least.
I have not heard him cite Religion as the "root of all evil" at all (neither have you probably but I'm sure you'll continue to repeat it as fact). If he did indeed say such a thing, then I would certainly agree with you and not him. The major religions have in the main, modernised themselves and are mostly peaceful, bar a few wacky interpretations that is. But weren't people always willing to put their own spin on things for their own selfish gain? Humans, bah.Dawkins is keen to cite religion as the root of all evil, which is total rubbish of course and completely ignores the millions upon millions of religious people that live in harmony with people of all faiths.
Couple of things there. 1. No, religion is not responsible for beauty anymore than it is responsible for war and violence. That'd be those annoying "humans" again, sometimes they play nice. 2. Atheism is not a faith, it is the lack of belief in gods and/or the denial of gods. If you feel that atheism is something you put "faith" in, then you are certainly not an atheist. It is not the opposite of theism, it is the absence of it. Quite a different thing.Religion gives direction and meaning to many people's lives and also is responsible for extraordinary beauty in the form of architecture, music and literature that millions of people of all faiths (and yes, even atheists..) have enjoyed for thousands of years..
I think geoff has chosen to misunderstand. I think I was quite clear in my argument. The original proposition was that religion should be banned because it causes suffering, etc. I countered this by saying there was nothing wrong with the religion and that it was people doing evil things in the name of their God who cause the problem. Geoff's response to my counter argument was that it was the people who cause the problem, etc. In other words, he was attempting to steal my position by presenting the same argument as me, albeit in a slightly different way, and saying I was wrong to oppose this position, even though it is the position I held in the first place
This is a politician's tactic. In the circumstances ad hominem seems entirely appropriate
LOL... from Wikepedia..
The Root of All Evil?, later retitled The God Delusion, is a television documentary written and presented by Richard Dawkins in which he argues that humanity would be better off without religion or belief in God.
Presumably you will now completely agree with me as per your statement?
What is funny is that Dawkins subsequently distanced himself from the title saying that it was not his choice... yeah, right... he only wrote and presented the whole program, of course he would have no control over the title...
And just in case any of you are in doubt over how a program can be manipulated to portray 'facts' in a particular way, here's a nice little snippet following the release of Root Of all Evil..
Journalists including Howard Jacobson had accused Dawkins of giving voice to extremists,[12] a claim Dawkins responded to by noting that the National Association of Evangelicals has some 30 million members, and also that he had invited the main UK religious leaders to participate, but they all declined.[11] However, Alister McGrath, a Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, was interviewed for the program, but was not included in the documentary.[13] McGrath claimed to have made Dawkins "appear uncomfortable" with his explanations of religious belief and the implication, made by McGrath, was that Dawkins's program showed journalistic dishonesty. In a lecture at City Church of San Francisco McGrath said that his interview was cut because he said things that did not promote the message that Dawkins and the producers wanted to get across..
Really? Now there's a surprise...
Last edited by Rocky; 20th-August-2010 at 09:27 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks