First, I'm not just condemning religion, as I am condemning all that is called God. I agree with most of Dawkin's points about the probability of 'existence' (whatever that means) of a/multiple 'god(s)' as being rather low. This is not the most important point, however, so let's leave it aside for now, and consider the possibility that there are/is in fact (a) god(s).
Be there (a) god(s), I would not worship it/them. As I see it this/these being(s) would have a rather lot to answer for. They would be accountably to whom, exactly? I claim, to humanity. And I would take a lot of convincing that it/many/most of them should not be put of some kind of trial for crimes against humanity. Certainly, I would not worship. I have some little bit of dignity and pride, and will not fall on my knees like a pitiful fool because of the demand of some Supreme Sky Being. Rather on my feet in hell, than on my knees in heaven. Who does this grand dude in the sky think it is, really, to deserve such mindless devotion on faith alone? And really, nothing can be omnipotent that is sentient. This must just be some kind of PR trick to inspire fear and unquestionable subservience, and at least should not be taken on face value for being proclaimed in some book or other. Let's take on this powerful force, and see it tremble in fear!
This is my main reaction to theistic religion. Deity sounds unlikely, but even if, no thanks! Let's believe in people, not god(s). So, please, stop worshiping and join the forces for people powered cosmic governance, god(s) or no god(s)!
If you are for real..we have one of the best experts in the world here in the UB. Manuel Delgado.. if you want to come..you may attend his classes. Believe me, they are absolutely great :)
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
Ted.. I am sorry i do not get it. Why do you attack me.? i ahve never attacked you. I do not have but respect about your position about religiona nd science (though I obviously disagree).
yes I happen to think Dawkins is a very bad scientists, but I think we can happily have a coffeee and discuss it.
Frankly I guess you tried to mock at me.. i am sorry.. it was not my intention to hurt you so that you will be back at me.
Actually I really feel very bad when this happens.
But jsut to claify to Colman.. in case he might have interpreted in other ways.
I was saying that Colman is completely right actually. Understanding why people pray is something tough. At first sight it makes absolutely no sense whassoever why people pray.. and preciesely I was saying that trying to udnerstand why this happens using scientific means has been the job of religious antrhopologists in the last centrureis. During these years they have gaines some insights that can be very useful... adn knowing COlman I was sure he would love to come here and attend those classes becaue they are really great and funny.
Colman, I do nto know if you take it like I am saying here, but after Ted comment , i do nto know, maybe it could have been interpreted as something similar to an attack.. I really have no idea how it could be.. really, you know I am for real.. and i would never attack anyone personal in ET. So, let me insist.. I was absolutely with you.
It seem my previous comment could ahve been interpreted as some kinof attack or sanrk at you.. I frankly do not know in which sense or how, but certainly Ted thought it was.. so there is a chance that you actually could read it the same way.
SO in case you might have interpreted in other ways.
I was saying that you are completely right actually. Understanding why people pray is something tough. At first sight it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever why people pray.. and preciesely I was saying that trying to understand why this happens using scientific means has been the job of religious antrhopologists in the last century. During these years they have gained some insights that can be very useful... and knowing you I was sure he would love to come here and attend those classes becaue they are really great and funny.
So the first sentence was about telling you that there is a whole field of science trying to answer precisely the same question. .. so I was saying you'd be interested in ne of thsoe topics or youw ere just putting a question in the air as a general statement (I guess it was the second, but now I do not know anymore).
The second part of my answer was to try to tell you that those classes can indeed be funny although they deala bout a topic which can be.. let's say tense, like religion... but M. Delgado is really an excellent teacher on reiligious antrhopology and you would really love him... well actually classes are in spanish now that I think. So maybe you can just come here because of the weather :)
Colman, I do nto know if you took it like I am saying here, but after Ted comment , i do nto know, maybe it could have been interpreted as something similar to an attack.. I really have no idea how it could be.. really, you know I am for real.. and i would never attack anyone personal in ET not even in disagreement. So, let me insist.. I was absolutely with you.
And in any case, sorry if necessary.
Though that was a rhetorical device rather than a literal question, it's nice to know that there are people studying the roots of the illness. Maybe we can find a treatment.
well.. you know here we disagree.. the danger is the attack on enlgihtenment values which does not come precisely directly from religion. So I do not see religion as some kind of illness... well at least no more than science :)
The treatment should be about defending enlightenment values in front of a tribe of nationalistic groups and oligarchies that use different narratives to attack it. The fact that they also use the religion hierarchical structure to force a literal imnterpretation of the sacred books so as to generate a defending/attackign attitude against science is what should worry us.
Religion can be used to fight for enlightenment values (as it has been done int he past) as much as against it.. because the core of the beliefs is bascially inconsecuential to the fight at hand.
But ,well this is another topic and I think Brit speaks foor me better than I would ever do.
But I am really glad you took my comment as it was.
That would come as a surprise to the Philosophes - see the quotation at the end of the diary from the history of atheism. But, yes, some Christians have retreated from some of their most barmy ideas and have accepted the validity of evolution - even the Pope - and Dawkins has joined with such Christians in fighting the spread of creationism.
Sigh, yet again, D acknowledges the diversity of Christians and works with some of them - see diary. But he is opposing the powerful influence of the many extremists, particularly in the US - who, for example, push creationism and ID. But he is also critical of moderate Christians as he feels they give respectability to the extremists - they make reliance on faith more acceptable.
Then I'm very sorry for you, since, as I showed at length in the diary, his criticism of Dawkins is based on ignorance and misinterpretation. Despite that he blithely makes the same mistakes in comments here - see my replies. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
ugh. that's tough, ain't? I mean, it seems that this is somewhat personal for you. I mean , probably Brit and I do not care about Dawkins in particular, and we think his way to approach the fight agaisnt elnlightenment values is not the correct one. Probably because Brit and myself have a very different idea about what science is about, and about his position in society. Maybe it is because we see religion with a different perspective haavily influence by our readings on symbolic antrhopology and mythology that we have disucussed here in ET thoroughly.
I think that if you look at the other diaries where we have proposed another approach to this fight and argued that the approach of Dawkins and ohter are probably detrimental you could see that Brit problems with dawkins do not arise fron ignorance or lack of understanding in dawkins propositions. The disagreement is more fundamental basically because they do not take into consideration (probably they would call it too postmdoernist for their taste) the inputs of symbolic and religious antrhopology about how people take symbolism and hierarchical symbolism in their hands.
But in any case. Let me tell you, it is not personal at all. It is just an opinion on the approach on this issue. It is in no way an attack against you in any sense. It is a strong disagreement about his approach as a social commentator (which he shares with other people so I find completely unfair to criticize him or single him out because we think it is a mistake.) and, well, a not very high regard about his scientific work. But sometimes it looks as if you take any disagreement about his approach or any attack about his scientfic credential as something personal.
Not too fast on this Pope. John Paul II did send an encouraging sign to a seminar back in 1996. The present Pope Ratzinger is in full regression on evolution and not only.
To set the tone of recent views on Darwin, the Pope has rested the matter in the competent hands of Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna, whose 2005 NYT article caused a major stir.
It is comforting to see that this Pope is very much concerned with the defence of reason against the ideologies of relativism, evolutionism and reductionism. That's True Reason, of course.
First we have
First, I'm not just condemning religion,
then we have
This is my main reaction to theistic religion
Ok we are beginning to actually make some sense now. It is still too simplistic.
I have some little bit of dignity and pride, and will not fall on my knees like a pitiful fool because of the demand of some Supreme Sky Being.
Do you really want to be this offensive?
Perhaps it is a bit risky to tell people what they do when they practice religion. Far better to ask. Also I would hate to get into this type of cultural superiority with both our past as a species, let alone condemn all people on the planet who do this whether in 1st, 2nd or 3rd world countries.
aspiring to genteel poverty
Perhaps it is a bit risky to tell people what they do when they practice religion. Far better to ask.
It is extremely common for Christian religions to have an open door policy. If they aren't going to talk about it - enter the door and see for yourself. If there are still problems, find an ex-member of that religion and ask them. the Internet is great for that. The more secretive they are the more likely there are going to be some real pissed off ex members of the group.
In the last year we have had two different people who as part of their university education entered our door to study us. We set special times aside to talk with them. We attempted to answer any questions they had. We made almost everything we do open to them. The one thing that remand closed was where we deal with issues that may sometimes fit under the topic of counseling. If they had wanted to know about that we would probably have arranged something there too. Certainly there is no prohibition about talking about it as long as confidentiality is not broken. What we do is not secret.
Some questions are extremely hard. For example what do you believe in? While the question appears straight forward - for a group that rejects creedal statements it is extremely complex. If you ask that question you may get something less than satisfactory. That's not because of secrecy though. If people come to ridicule us, and disrupt us, then I would expect we would be less helpful.
What I hear over and over is a strong concern over a fairly rigid set of beliefs that may fit under the broad definition of "traditional" - recognizing that traditional is much larger than this. This concern seems to be centered on religions that define themselves at least to some extent as explaining that which science does not explain. To try to nail it a bit further - a group that wishes in some way to live in the past or without the bother of the rest of the world. I do recognize that there may be exceptions to this.
What appears to be done is to take this group - admittedly extremely large in some countries - and make the claim that this group is religion. Just as multiculturalism as made inroads into society, it has made inroads into religion. People are people. Our religion has had its effect on society and society has had its effect on us and we like it that way.
Well, if fundies who are stuck in the past would just leave the rest of us the hell alone, I suspect that most people would be more than happy to let them get on with being stuck in the past. Whatever floats their boat and all that. (Now, whether this is an entirely ethical position to take is a somewhat more sticky issue.)
What appears to be done is to take this group - admittedly extremely large in some countries - and make the claim that this group is religion.
That is clearly not what Dawkins does in the interviews posted in the diary (as I said above, I can't comment on the totality of his work). Leaving aside the fact that going after fundamentalism with full force and not worrying about stepping on some religious moderates' (sometimes overly sensitive) toes can certainly be viewed as an entirely ethical thing to do...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
That is clearly not what Dawkins does in the interviews posted in the diary
I guess we will have to disagree then.
Also I would hate to get into this type of cultural superiority with both our past as a species, let alone condemn all people on the planet who do this whether in 1st, 2nd or 3rd world countries.
