Eminent zoologist Richard Dawkins becomes the picture of the evangelical athiest, no longer a contradiction in terms, in a recent BBC interview about his book, The God Delusion:
I love that he referenced the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster but I found the whole interview covered some pretty old territory. I think he attacks organized religion very well but doesn't really hit theism head on in any substantial way. If we came from a big bang, which I fully accept that we probably did, where did the material that exploded come from? What preceded all of that? It's not to say that there isn't a possible scientific explanation for it but there could just as easily be a possible spiritual explanation. Whether the events of the universe are linear or cyclical, something has to get it all going...
Then again, this may just be my United Church background talking, where it was ok to think critically about all these things and not particularly oppressive.
That's the cosmological argument. With what little I know about relativity, I can see time as being just another dimension of the universe, so without the universe time doesn't really make sense, so the question what came before the universe doesn't really make sense, which I'm mostly ok with.
I like the part where he suggests we teach kids about philosophy and ethics to impart them with good values and morals. What a crazy suggestion.
Yeah, it's not 'new'... but the reason I posted it is because I think it's a new phenomenon that atheists are coming out of their warrens and actually arguing with the regious types. Usually it's fervent Christians that start debates like these. It could be a new offensive after the 'Intelligent Design' assault...
I read some of Dawkins's book in an airport, specifically attacks on logically believing in God, and I have to say I wish I could rattle these off. It would make me so insufferably right all the time. Also, it's kind of funny that the BBC interviewer was totally frightened of him.
Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! I just finished the most interesting readings EVER on religion, politics and secularism. Atheism is OLD news. It was huge back in the mid 18th century, which is about when the term 'secularism' came around. A British chap was looking for an alternative to atheism, and that's what he came up with.
So, maybe it isn't such a new phenomenon then. I'd argue that the dynamic between religious and atheist types is like a pendulum swinging back and forth. The harder one side pushes, the stronger the swing backwards.
And about that whole philosophy thing... I studied philosophy! Moral education my ass! If there's one thing I learned it's that philosophers can't do what they preach. They're all talk and zero performance. And talk about child abuse! Look at what Rousseau did to his kid. I mean that's seriously messed up.
I haven't studied philosophy, but I have studied logic, and I think he meant more the 'how do you know something is true' part of philosophy, rather than the accrued theories of historical philosophers.
And moral education, I like the idea of morality being a behavioural trait that evolved to make us work as social animals. If it weren't for that it'd be all about the moral relativism.
Hurray for internets! Better to make a mess on here then in real life.
An evolutionary perspective of morality doesn't anything. Genes and morality guide you rather than make your decisions for you. Like it feels good to do X or bad to do Y. That's the same for tons of other stuff that's undeniably genetics. Why should I be moral? Because it feels good. That's the simplest answer.
But of course why does it feel good is more complicated.
Heh -- Dawkins would completely disagree with you, then. He says something like, 'I hate it when children are referred to as Christian children or Moslem children. Let them have the chance to decide!' Sounds like he's rejecting morality being inherited as an evolved trait, and instead one that's inculcated in the little poppets as the person grows.
However you slice it, organized religion tries to take away choice: thou shalt not covet another man's wife, all that. Sometimes it's okay, because one of those commandments is 'Thou shalt not kill.' But other times it's used to deny people a choice: this ethnic group or this religion is bad, etc. Dawkins wants people to acknowledge that they have a choice in everything. I've never heard of an athiest crusade...
Then again, this may just be my United Church background talking, where it was ok to think critically about all these things and not particularly oppressive.
Reply
I like the part where he suggests we teach kids about philosophy and ethics to impart them with good values and morals. What a crazy suggestion.
Reply
Reply
I read some of Dawkins's book in an airport, specifically attacks on logically believing in God, and I have to say I wish I could rattle these off. It would make me so insufferably right all the time. Also, it's kind of funny that the BBC interviewer was totally frightened of him.
Go United Church!
Reply
So, maybe it isn't such a new phenomenon then. I'd argue that the dynamic between religious and atheist types is like a pendulum swinging back and forth. The harder one side pushes, the stronger the swing backwards.
And about that whole philosophy thing... I studied philosophy! Moral education my ass! If there's one thing I learned it's that philosophers can't do what they preach. They're all talk and zero performance. And talk about child abuse! Look at what Rousseau did to his kid. I mean that's seriously messed up.
Reply
And moral education, I like the idea of morality being a behavioural trait that evolved to make us work as social animals. If it weren't for that it'd be all about the moral relativism.
Reply
Reply
An evolutionary perspective of morality doesn't anything. Genes and morality guide you rather than make your decisions for you. Like it feels good to do X or bad to do Y. That's the same for tons of other stuff that's undeniably genetics. Why should I be moral? Because it feels good. That's the simplest answer.
But of course why does it feel good is more complicated.
Reply
However you slice it, organized religion tries to take away choice: thou shalt not covet another man's wife, all that. Sometimes it's okay, because one of those commandments is 'Thou shalt not kill.' But other times it's used to deny people a choice: this ethnic group or this religion is bad, etc. Dawkins wants people to acknowledge that they have a choice in everything. I've never heard of an athiest crusade...
Reply
Leave a comment