sorry..........

Sikhism and Jainism doesn't preach a man in the sky either.

However, IMV the problem with most Religions isn't with the Religion itself but it's interpretations by it's followers.

 

I agree, though this is the area that is hardest of all to nail down IMHO - this is where the real argument exists. As mentioned earlier I’m an atheist. I’m also a libertarian. I believe that people should have the absolute maximum of freedom and personal space possible - logically this must include the right to believe in pixies, fairies, gods, ghosts, goblins or anything they so wish to as long as it does not impact anyone else’s personal freedom.

Organised religion should therefore be policed. It should be restricted or even removed from a society when it attempts to dictate it’s rhetoric and dogma upon others and it should never be allowed a legislative hold over it’s followers or any others. At this point it should be stamped on very, very hard by any free thinking society. The situation where religious dogma is allowed to dictate or influence national law (the way it does in certain Islamic states and the USA) is entirely unacceptable IMHO.

Tony.

 

Not just the USA and Islamic states Tony. Why do you think RE is the only compulsory subject on the curriculum in the UK? (It is also the only subject parents can opt their kids out of.)

 

I realise that and as stated earlier I am very much opposed to any religious programming in schools. My point was that fundamentalist Christian homophobia and anti-abortion / anti-science dogma tends not to end up as state legislation here whereas it does in the USA.

There are clearly problems with many organised religions in the UK but things are no where near as oppressive and restrictive as people face in many other countries. The thing that scares me the most though is the direction in which things are moving, i.e. the trend is towards increased religious programming and dogma not towards personal freedom and tolerance. It is a frightening time.

Tony.

 

I've always seen religion as an act of desperation by people. The ritual of praying, doing all the good deeds, believing in God etc. in the desperate hope of achieving certain things. Even if that is a peace of mind after being down on luck. Eg, it is much easier to accept that your loved one has gone to a better place than the more obvious explanation. I think most of our religeous acts are probably more to do with guilt and hope that it doesn't to me rather than genuine desire to please the maker.

I believe that religion will probably play no part in our lives if we didn't need it. We need to believe in other things, so we invent them and are probably healthier/happier for it.

 

A happier ending for this child.

 

Dev I think you've nicely summed up a key point - that of the role religion plays in helping ordinary people cope with the harsh reality of their lives - a situation by far the majority of the world's population have little option but to endure.

I think it's fair to say "religion" seems to have little or no role for many of the lucky few who live a life of general comfort and security. I think it's very easy for members of this fortunate minority to find the concept of religion silly and to look down of those who don't.

 

I'm not in the "fortunate minority" but in case I gave that impression I'd like to say that I do not look down on people having religious beliefs. I'd just like them to have more respect for their fellow beings and actually practice what they preach (Obviously here I am not addressing the extremists, who should practice less and get out more).

 

One of the reasons Dawkins irks me is due to how his book is referenced by several people I know as a way of popping the subject of God and Faith in a little box once and for all without, IMHO, exploring the subject in any depth themselves.

It might seem a little harsh to say it, but I find this to be similarly dismissive, in some ways, to those narrow minded religious biggots Dawkins's hate so much.

 

I’m not remotely convinced comfort is a key factor – many of the most obnoxious and oppressive Christian fundamentalists in the US are anything but poor, likewise many Islamic police states are very wealthy indeed from an economic perspective. My guess is that it largely boils down to a combination of restrictive education and deliberate political control – systematically brainwashing ones children inevitably leads to brainwashed adults which only continues the cycle.

There must be a tipping point where a significant percentage of a community has decided / been forced to believe in a series of nice religious lies rather than horrible scientific truths and then deliberately strangles any freedom of thought present in the rest. They quite simply prevent learning and knowledge. Extremist religions restrict and control any information that questions or contradicts their belief systems, i.e. they all burn books – almost always the better and most informative ones. It is this tipping point that frightens me the most as a fair few countries that really should know better seem alarmingly close to it.

Tony.

 

I didn't suggest this is a definitive perspective, just a "key point", which historically it is. The fact other people manipulate the needy and uneducated/easily influenced and use religious belief to their political or financial advantage is another key point. The latter doesn't contradict the former.

 

Why would his work irk you - surely if it raises constructive discussion/debate, thats a good thing. No?

Can you recommend any solid arguments/books against atheism/Dawkins? I am genuinely interested as I am new to exploring this subject and so far Dawkins' text is convincing to me.

 

This video should convince you - one way or the other.

 

Now that is some crazy stuff!

 

Bloody good post. And that's exactly the reason why people like Dawkins are fighting these dangerous simpletons.

 

What about the bible ? It's utter tripe IMO but some people love it In the far more interesting camp give Cosmos a read by Carl Sagan. There's a few great chapters about the persecution of the underground science movement throughout the early understanding of nature. It's not totally unrealistic to say we'd be 200 years ahead in our understanding of the sciences if the great minds and the library of Alexandria hadn't been persecuted or destroyed by the Ted Haggard's of the age.

 

Quite right and so he should. Except is that the whole picture of religious belief? It isn't, but Dawkins and Tony seem to think it is.

 

It irks me that the debate seems to end there. Can't you see? That's my whole point.

Can I present a solid argument against Atheism? Thanks for the easy question.

Fundamentally Atheism is a rejection of god or gods. This is really not the same thing as rejecting religious practice, religious bigotry, the social failings of organised religion. All the things Tony and Dawkins (and I, incidentally) hate about organised religion have little or nothing to do with the subject of God (IMO).

Let's not overlook the fact his book isn't entitled "The Failing of Religion" or "The Evil of Religious Bigots" it's "The God Delusion".

So moving away from the subject of the failings of organised religion and onto the subject of God...

Firstly Atheism is a part of The Philosophy of Religion so let's be clear my reference to that subject includes arguments proposing Theism as well as arguments proposing Atheism and Agnosticism. So bear in mind that not believing in god/gods can still represent a n active participation within that subject. I suggest that Dawkins is not willing to approach the broader academic discussion, his is a polemic and as such should be seen in that context - ie. treated as a voice amongst many rather than a definitive and unarguable position (which is pretty much how you referred to his book).

Some Atheists are simply rejecting religion and in that case (may) not really understand their own position, in contrast genuine Atheism is (arguably) an engagement of philosophical discussion from the position of non-belief.

I often consider those with Tony's perspective as not really Atheist - a bit like my children describing themselves as allergic to cabbage when really they just don't like it. Buddism for example is described as a religion and yet is Atheisic.

On the subject of God:
There is a philosophical position which proposes Atheists cannot reject God because they have never actually engaged with the subject of God. This position concludes their rejection is meaningless. Dawkins specifically refers to God, yet does not engage with one of the most fundamental elements of that subject - Faith. Faith appears not to be approached in Dawkins's world picture. He seems not to be able to analyse it and by ignoring it, to my mind, his position on the subject of God is absolutely meaningless. I'd add here that the same applies to millions and millions of supposedly "religious" people.

True Faith is not belief in the supernatural. A common misconception of some Atheists is that God is a belief in the supernatural - that they need to see empirical evidence of God's hand at work. If evidence cannot be produced then Faith is debunked. Again a total inability to understand something which cannot be described in their language constructs. It seems to me that true Faith is a knowledge of God. To "know" God, not to believe in God like you might believe in ghosts or fairies.

Another area is this idea that belief in God is a rejection of science. What if God was simply a word used to describe the laws of nature? To use the vernacular - what if the miracle is simply the fucking incredible wonder which surrounds all of us?

If that were God and you accepted the laws of nature then you actually accepted God?

What if "a man in the clouds" (to paraphrase Tenson) was really nothing to do with anything?

What if those with Faith in God and who know God do not believe God can respond to requests or change the physical world?

That even in their most desperate moments that God will not, in fact cannot, intervene (the scepticism in God as a result of this is generally referred to in the "Problem of Evil").

The subject of prayer is curious, but interesting.

Mathematics and geometry are a massively important part of Islam, what if this is because science and Allah are hand in hand for a real Muslim?

I'd start by just having a mooch through this

 

And that is the basis of true spirituality which lies behind (sadly, often hides behind) most religions.

Good post, Greg.

 

I tried earlier to clearly differentiate my views on a person’s right to believe in anything they wish and the organised religions which wish to force their views and dogma upon others either through violence or state legislation. It is the latter I’m interested in restricting / standing against – I’m happy to live and let live with the former. Real freedom and personal space is essential in any civilised society.

I have no real issue with an individual’s personal beliefs even if they appear entirely irrational and illogical to me. As long as it does not interfere with others (and that includes their children) I won’t with it. I will happily concede that religion has produced much good art (Bach etc) and many believers are in reality perfectly balanced and thoroughly decent people, i.e. it is not an entirely negative force.

As an atheist the last thing I want to do is to force my views upon anyone else (this is perhaps the key area I differ from Dawkins). I have no interest whatsoever in ‘disproving god’ any more than I want to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Father Christmas - these things don't interest me - I don’t care enough to get involved. My concern is with how organised religion is integrated into a country and how it interacts with the freedom of thought and personal space of others, especially those who do not believe. I care about freedom and liberty, i.e. I look at religion more from the perspective of political thought control rather than a spiritual thing – I don’t care what someone believes up until the point they take my country to war or wish to blow themselves up in my proximity.

To protect against this political aspect I feel that if religion has a place in a school it should be taught in the same way as geology, archaeology or history, i.e. all religions should be critically analysed, compared and viewed in a dispassionate and logical way. There is IMHO no situation where praying etc is acceptable in a school and there should clearly be no single faith schools as they enhance the divisions in society, not integration. I also think that there should be a firm age of consent for religion, logically the same as alcohol as that is also a mind altering substance. This would help break from the systematic brainwashing of infants that is evident in all of the major religious denominations and is rife in all countries.

A person should weigh up the facts and then make a logical decision about religion as a young adult with a clear head, not after 18 years of systematic programming, rhetoric and dogma from schools and families. Baptism and other religious acts against children are IMHO entirely unacceptable – I mean how does one undo it (please tell me, I was molested in this way as an infant!).

Tony.

PS check this lot out. You couldn’t make it up… (well, actually...).