| Author |
Message |
Psiga
Posts: 3990
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
dhex wrote:
What? Plenty of neuroscientists would quibble about how the brain percieves and interprets 'faith' and 'evil', let alone where they come from or which came first. Dawkins makes a fool of himself in that light.
what do you mean?
If his own statements are to be believed, Dawkins' definition of "faith" is "the process of non-thinking." Thus all "evil" -- all ruin, pain, malice, blame, spite, anger -- is merely the result of non-thinking. This does not strike you as odd? Have you never seen somebody be slighted, ruined, or angered by very logical intent? The inherent unfairness of natural law, coupled with humanity's inherent chemical instability and potential for antisocial psychological development, is a deeper root of evil, regardless of how much thinking a person does.
There's more I could blither about, but I'm in a hurry today, so NOT NOW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lick Meth
Posts: 154
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
I can't remember the quote, but my favourite* description of "evil" went along the lines of "when a person is lacking in apathy".
*'favourite' as in "most sensible", as opposed to blaming things like 'sin' and so forth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
finnagain
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
I am so glad I didn't jump into this thread earlier. Because it has been an engaging, surprisingly civil discussion of Dawkins, and that is something damn rare to find. And I am sure I would not have been civil or engaging on the subject, because he is just as totalitarian as the straw-men religious nutjobs he mocks.
Usually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Psiga
Posts: 3990
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
I was going to say that at least Dawkins doesn't present a straw man himself, but I suppose that would be contradicting my own critique of his methods: For him to claim that faith is the root of evil simply because it is the process of non-thinking, that in itself is a straw man. If he'd provide a more functional description of his definitions of faith and evil, that might help a bit. Some people equate faith specifically with religious belief, while some equate it with the general-purpose belief that better days can come to those who are good. Even scientists have different definitions of what is or is not good to do.
It's a lot like dhex said, of course: This is establishing an introduction of sorts. The logical (if bitterly condescending) counterpoint to mass irrational belief in something that has no appreciable evidence in its favor. There is little or no middle ground to be found in Dawkins' work, but it sure does have some fun impact to it anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Broco
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
finnagain wrote:
it has been an engaging, surprisingly civil discussion of Dawkins
It's been civil because everybody here pretty much agrees on Dawkins: what he says may be partially correct, but he's still a simpleminded jerk. If either a Dawkins supporter or religious fundamentalist hopped in, Godwin's Law would apply within three posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
finnagain
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
Broco wrote:
finnagain wrote:
it has been an engaging, surprisingly civil discussion of Dawkins
It's been civil because everybody here pretty much agrees on Dawkins: what he says may be partially correct, but he's still a simpleminded jerk. If either a Dawkins supporter or religious fundamentalist hopped in, Godwin's Law would apply within three posts.
I had to look up Godwin's law.
You are entirely right, and now I have a new phrase to add to my personal lexicon.
SIDEBAR: Why always Hitler? Why not Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Andrew Jackson? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chosun
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
Gasp! He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bort
Posts: 319
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
finnagain wrote:
SIDEBAR: Why always Hitler? Why not Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Andrew Jackson?
I'm not exactly sure, and even if I was, there's the whole issue of techno-science to take into account. Sorry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scratchmonkey
Posts: 2229
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
Because Hitler and the Nazis are the most well known "humans as monsters" situation.
It's also good to remember that Godwin's Law just states that the probability of Hitler or the Nazis being mentioned approaches one the longer that the discussion goes on, so it doesn't really say that the discussion is then worthless or whether the mentioning is relevant or not, just that it is increasingly inevitable. Godwin himself has stated that the main reason to avoid using it is because it's unlikely to be a valid comparison and won't have much rhetorical weight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
finnagain
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
Scratchmonkey wrote:
Because Hitler and the Nazis are the most well known "humans as monsters" situation.
It's also good to remember that Godwin's Law just states that the probability of Hitler or the Nazis being mentioned approaches one the longer that the discussion goes on, so it doesn't really say that the discussion is then worthless or whether the mentioning is relevant or not, just that it is increasingly inevitable. Godwin himself has stated that the main reason to avoid using it is because it's unlikely to be a valid comparison and won't have much rhetorical weight.
That clears things up for me quite a bit -- I just think that a elderly Russian man who spent time in the gulags might feel Stalin was worse -- same thing with Cambodians & Pol Pot. But that is splitting hairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
showka
Posts: 994
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
Man AND woman? People got to put these sci-foe mofos on a leash lest the hos get out of hand.
dhex wrote:
i don't always like dawkins on religion particularly. the godwin's law violation at 22:30 is beyond the pale.
Ok, I just learned what Godwin's law is and thus I'm compelled to defend Dawkins here (be a Dawkin's apologist, if you will), even though I think you're all right that he would come across better if he didn't go there.
But first, a boring anctedote.
Over a year ago, my girlfriend asks if I want to go see some "religious thing" her ultra-conservative, Fox news loving Protestant (?) Grandmother has gotten many tickets to. Apparently all of her friends at the retirement home, where she's a pseudo-celebrity, mysteriously couldn't go at the last minute. I'm an adventurous sort so I think why the hell not and head to the Alamo Dome.
First off - getting there takes about fifty minutes longer than it should. That fifty minutes is spent driving about two miles and parking, because traffic is packed. When I get there, all the parking is gone but everyone is violating parking laws and putting their cars where they shouldn't so I say fuck it and park in some spooky unmarked lot with a chain length fence which, on a normal evening, would get the fucker towed and impounded. Hundreds of well groomed people, dressed in better than their Sunday best, are streaming across the streets, walking blocks to reach the Alamo Dome. I realize I'm dressed in a t-shirt and some raggedy looking jeans.
I get inside the Alamo Dome and meet my girlfriend who says that her grandmother got "good" seats. As we step inside, I realize that the Alamo Dome is beyond full capacity. Every seat in every one of the three tiers of bleachers is full. The center of the stadium is filled with thousands of seats, all of them full. Three big image projects sit halfway across the stadium, but we keep walking, until we reach the front of the floor seating, and end up in Row 3 (out of hundreds of rows, each almost a hundred seats wide) fairly close to the center of the stage thats against the end of the stadium floor. Her grandma has, to quote Home Simpson, "saved us some kick-ass seats." Where we're sitting is so hardcore that we're mostly surrounded by preachers.
The concert / sermon was conducted by none other than Joel Olsteen. His face permanently sealed in a joker-sized smile (only somehow warm instead of hellishly frightening), he was the only speaker that night that didn't make me feel slightly uncomfortable with the massive enterprise I saw before me. Half way through the event, they played a video about the millions of people who followed their sermons around the world, and something about the scope of it all plus the tone of the announcer reminded me of the Truman show.
Now I come to my point. During one of the many songs, I looked around me, and saw everyone swaying around and clapping, huge men in suits, eyes closed and raising their fists high. I saw my girlfriend was smiling and her old grandmother was actually moving to it with the rest of them. Keep in mind, these songs weren't lyrical accomplishments. If Old Testament God was there he probably would've disapproved of them and given many in the crowd boils. Its not like they somehow condescened great theological prose into catchy imatation pop-rock and every lyric that came fourth from the female singers mouth held insightful truths. Most of the lyrics were things like "You are GOOD / Halleluiah, halleluiah / We love you / For who you are..." Yes, God is indeed good. Well, at least the version you hear about when you're not reading the bible. And I guess we should love him for who he is, that being God? Other songs of similar artistry followed.
Pretty soon, I felt rude just standing their so I started clapping and trying to get into it. It felt too fake, and I felt like a liar or a tourist standing there (which was exactly what I was), and for a moment I sincerely wished I wasn't. I sympathetically thought, how do I know this isn't true? And grappled with ideas long relugated to the basement of my belief system to see what still worked. Suddenly, I realized that I had no reason to go about changing the arrangement of my neurons just out of some strange sense of obiligation to people that had thrown a (rough estimation) 75 million dollar religious party. At that moment, I was standing there with all the warmth, and realized all of it was about a set of ideas I didn't think was true, and never thought would be true. And I thought, "This must've been how it felt to have lived in Nazi Germany during the Hitler rallies." (I didn't know the fancy name for them was the Nuremberg rallies.) I just imagined how it would be so hard to think something that all of your friends and family were getting behind was wrong, especially if you were young or stupid or it was before genocide had gotten underway. Thats one of those thoughts that I had, and it was really strong and I considered it for several minutes. It did not mean that the people there were Nazis but I guess I did think they the whole event was uber-manipulative.
I never brought this up to anyone before because I understood Goodwin's Law even before I knew its name, but I did think it. So, while its kind of dickish for Dawkin's to just say it, I can see how the man might've justifiably made the comparassion if he'd just gotten out of a megachurch sermon. And isn't Haggart a closest homosexual who was cheating on his wife with a male protestitute and doing crystal meth? I also saw Haggart on Jesus camp and he came off as kind of a dick when he was talking to this grade-schooler fan of his who wanted to be a preacher too. Haggart said something like "well people may just like your sermons because you're a little kid." If Haggart can give that morsal of truth to a tiny child that has to deal with a rat tail his parents should be jailed for allowing him to keep, I think Dawkins can offer his true feelings to a closested homosexual who worked hard with politicians to screw over other gay people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lick Meth
Posts: 154
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
showka wrote:
Story of scary evangelical gathering
I'm bad at articulating myself appropriately, but I felt like sharing this small revelation (which, no doubt, everyone who has ever had run-ins with Christianity has often felt one time or another).
I love reading these kind of stories, but I'll explain my position behind my (not so unique) revelation: I'm pretty agnostic, and would prefer it if people didn't come up to my face and tell me what to believe, be they the obnoxious street preacher on the one hand, or the angry truth of Dawkins on the other. I'd very much prefer to find my own way (like many others, I'd imagine), and die worried about what happens next. The thing that gets me the most is how the bad figures are remembered more in the evangelical mainstream (Old Testament God) than the more rational or human (New Testament God, or Jesus, Heaven forbid). About Jesus: if what I've read about is mostly true, he was probably like the best modern day philosophers: treat everyone nicely, don't judge people unfairly, don't compare crimes, walk on water etc. I get the idea that he was probably some kind of local terrorist before his death, because I'm sure there were people claiming to be related to God (or some other powerful deity) all of the time back then.
So: what happened? When did the rationality die? Why should I devote my life to raising money for an organisation who exists purely for the purpose of capturing more people for donations and henceforth? Are Evangelists even remotely self-sufficient, e.g. can they grow crops, build houses or even combat criticism effectively? Because if they can't do any of that shit, then what chance do they have in saving the world? Was that ever their aim?
I'm not even sure what I'm on about anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Posts: 2963
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
i don't think dawkins is very totalitarian in spirit, though he clearly wishes he could prevent parents from teaching their children odd metaphysics. i am disappointed that he doesn't see the inherent pitfall of baditude in even contemplating greater state involvement in creating a single standard of childrearing, but as someone of minarchist sympathies, i am disappointed about this a lot. and the minute he crosses the line to actually pushing for legislation - outside of working against that horribly stupid british religious anti-defamation law, maybe - he can go suck it.
but when it comes down to it there aren't an awful lot of hyperactive materialists pushing laws on us. but consider the states that passed gay marriage initiatives recently; those are deeply religious arguments being advanced. i think this behavior, however, appears untoward to me (even if i agree with him) simply because it is a religious belief being questioned; it's an issue of both futility and something almost taboo, even if religious traditions are ultimately a threat to certain things i consider good about the human condition.
large communal gatherings are freaky, because they have their own kind of power, whether directed or spontaneous. it's a very comfortable feeling to be a part of something, especially something immediate and "alive" like that. materialistic collectivism doesn't really satisfy those needs in the same way, it would seem, though certain political gatherings come close.
If his own statements are to be believed, Dawkins' definition of "faith" is "the process of non-thinking." Thus all "evil" -- all ruin, pain, malice, blame, spite, anger -- is merely the result of non-thinking.
this isn't that crazy if you take "non-thinking" to involve the process of dehumanizing a target, even if your reasons are motivated by the dispassionate grinding of bureaucracy. i think he'd dump dehumanization into the category of evil, obviously.
i don't like his attitude either, however.
and why hitler? why not? he moves the passions in a way that stalin does not, nor mao nor pol pot or other character xyz. the methodical kind of record-keeping and footage lends itself to horror. less people have read gulag stories, of five year plans gone awry, etc, and socialism is an authoritarianism of good intentions. it's hard to remember a time when fascism was seen as the only way to truly hold nations together, or in the case of yeats and the blueshirts, to build a nation in the first place.
calls to be a people are powerful, and i think some of that is what dawkins is thrashing against. he's also treating religious folk like one would treat a fortune teller, or someone who followed ramtha or david icke, or was part of a fringe ideology (nazism, etc) that was just a little too far outside of the culture. that's beyond the pale, even for someone like me who does think that it is a crime (against the spirit) to raise children to believe masturbation is an expression of a fallen body, to pick a random example. but if we remove the ability of children to be taught by their parents, who gets to call the shots? it may be a tragedy of some kind or another, but that's life.
i don't think this is a problem because cause is not meaning, and meaning is not cause. and the pre-rational and the rational can't really be at odds because they don't play on the same field. everyone has some kind of pet metaphysics that explains the world for them in emotional terms.
i dunno. i've been reading an awful lot about the decline of high mayan culture and their religious vicissitudes, and a unified mythos only seems to be stable in small, static groupings. though the idea of a leader having to run a stingray spine through his dick to let blood and invoke his ancestors every time he wanted to make a public display of power is quite appealing in one sense. if people want to be pay for magic rocks, "tap that ass" or participate in other expressions of low-key sympathetic magics (i.e. "organic" foods, good luck charms, gurus of various stripe, etc) who am i to stop them? allowing the mass of people to make these decisions will always be preferable to having a unified government do it.
nothing murders like a government.
edit: i feel compelled to recommend unweaving the rainbow, a book by dawkins that i think nearly everyone can get something out of, even if they think (as guardian appeared to at the beginning of the thread) materialism destroys aesthetic beauty and wonder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Posts: 2963
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Posts: 2963
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
internisus
Posts: 961
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
finnagain wrote:
I am so glad I didn't jump into this thread earlier. Because it has been an engaging, surprisingly civil discussion of Dawkins, and that is something damn rare to find. And I am sure I would not have been civil or engaging on the subject, because he is just as totalitarian as the straw-men religious nutjobs he mocks.
Usually.
While what you say is true, and Dawkins is nearly as disturbing as the movements he criticizes, it is hard to deny that sweeping nonpragmatic and nonrational christian motivations dominate the United States, much less that irreconcilable religious differences continue to fuel enormous worldwide military conflicts. As a narrator pointing out these frightening truths, Dawkins comes across as single-minded and unsympathetic, yes, but he also does a very good job of communicating the sheer dismay that he embodies, and to that end, he seems pretty convincing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Business
Posts: 1530
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
| Is it bad that I sort of liked what I saw of the guy on that Colbert Report clip? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
internisus
Posts: 961
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
No problem!
Though it would help if you linked to a torrent or something, 'cos I didn't see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Business
Posts: 1530
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
I watched it here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
internisus
Posts: 961
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
oh rite
well, i'll get back to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Posts: 2963
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
i just don't see the danger in dawkins, i guess.
seriously, watch the lectures (the last two things i posted). you might better grok his stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maztorre
Posts: 1175
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
Hawkins is a likeable guy in the lectures and Q&A. In the Channel4 documentary he is a lot more confrontational about issues, but that may just be a grab for viewers with faux-controversy.
There definitely needs to be someone like him who is willing to go out there and actually confront the IDers instead of preaching to the converted in science journals. I don't understand why there aren't more like him who will speak out in his manner. Intelligent design creation "theory" has nothing to fall back on. It should be openly ridiculed. Scientists have nothing to fear of in a public debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
internisus
Posts: 961
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
dhex wrote:
i just don't see the danger in dawkins, i guess.
Sure, but do you think he can actually do any good?
I mean, here are the two possible outcomes he might approve of:
1) Religious people altogether go "hey, our faith is dangerous and creepy, let's just forget the whole thing"
2) Atheists the world over ban faith forever. Once again, Jews are hunted and killed.*
I have my doubts that either of these will come to pass.
*I can say this, for I am technically a Jew.**
**Back in college I lived with some funny guys who used to tell me "Damnit! Get in the oven!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Posts: 2963
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
3) religions beliefs, especially in the political sphere, lose some of its special position as an appeal above response. (outside of the liberal christian back and forth, i mean, a la bill moyers)
again, watch the c-span lectures. it's far better than the bcc special, i think. his message is far more sympathetic in that format. (not that jewish converts to islam blaming social unrest on women not being controlled enough isn't hilarious)
though he misses the point about herding atheists. it's not that they're smarter or more like cats, but that they don't share anything in common except a disbelief. active persecution would change this, of course, but i don't see that happening anytime soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Posts: 2963
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|