Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Anti-theistic strawmen?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1 of 145 (424747)
09-28-2007 11:41 AM


I'm sure they exist in abundance, but I'm primarily looking to focus on the arguments put forward by prominent anti-theists. Notably, in the poltergeist thread, it was said:
Not to cast aspersions on Dawkins, by the way, but I started watching one of those video links and he said that the people gathering for a candle-lit ceremony were on a slippery slope to becoming the sort of religious fanatics who encourage someone to murder themselves and others in the name of a god. This is deeply insulting to all the peaceful religious people I ever knew. I think I'm going to go with Percy's strawman comments there and decide it's all rather too extreme for me to stomach, though no doubt he's got some good points to make.
At (2:50) in "The Root of All Evil?", the statement in question:
quote:
...but isn't this beginning of that slippery slope that leads to young men with rucksack bombs on the tube?... [the assault on the senses] appeals to us not to think, not to doubt, not to probe and if we can retain our faith against the evidence in the teeth of reality the more virtuous we are...
This is a benign herd. but it supports a backward belief system that I believe reason must challenge.
This is not a strawman. It is not defining religion, it is describing Dawkins' argument which he intends to then support. It is essentially the introduction to Dawkins' argument which the rest of the program intends to show. It likewise has a conclusion where he summarises.
Dawkins is not arguing that these Catholics were on the slippery slope to suicide bombing. He is arguing that the same thinking, the same suspension of disbelief, the same attitude towards faith in spite of evidence, that can lead to fanaticism. The argument has weight when we examine it in my opinion, and the documentary goes someway into doing that.
As Dawkins puts it at about [7.50]
quote:
I want to look at how the suspension of disbelief inherent in faith can lead to far more dangerous ideas beyond.
Not long afterwards [11.05] he gives an example which I consider to be far more deadly, far more appalling, than rucksack bombers on the underground: The faith-based conviction that we should discourage condom use in AIDS-ridden Africa and the resultant action stemming from that.
This should at least, deeply shock peaceful followers of religion but they should not be offended by it. Dawkins does not go around suggesting that all peaceful religious people are responsible for these deaths, but he is suggesting that their way of thinking is responsible for these deaths.
However, this thread is about the supposed strawmen of anti-theistic arguments put forwards by the spokespeople. I'm sure there are some, but I do not think their central argument rests upon a strawman version of religion. For those who do not have access to the relevant books, it might be an idea to reference one of the many videos that has recently come out on this topic. One of which being The Root of All Evil? referenced in this post.
I don't necessarily want to focus on the ills that religion does or does not cause, nor on the counter-balancing good it might do...such arguments should only be made with regard to any strawmen you think have been put forward. That is to say, the argument I put forward here with regards to the quote at the top of the thread, is not the topic in and of itself. Thought it best to get that clearly written.
Anyway, here is Dawkins' conclusion [43.00] from that show:
quote:
Clearly, historic injustice towards the Palestinians breeds hatred and anger. But we must face up to the fact that in creating the death cults of suicide bombers - it's unshakeable unreasonable conviction in your own righteous faith that is the key. If preachers then tell the faithful that paradise after martyrdom is better than existence in the real world, it's hardly surprising that some crazed followers will actually swallow it, leading to a terrible cycle of vendetta, war and suffering.
Dawkins' basic point is here as well - without faith, without the system in which everybody reinforces the idea that faith is good despite the lack of evidence (or even despite contradictory evidence), the death cults could not function as they do now. That is what he means by the Catholics candle ceremony being the top of a slippery slope, of being the support to a backward belief system, of leading to dangerous ideas and actions.
I'm guessing Faith and belief for this one

No - I don't believe a cosmic Jewish zombie can make me live forever if I eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that I accept him as my master, so he can then remove an evil force from my soul that is present in all of humanity because a dirt/rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree about 6,000 years ago just after the universe was created. Why should I?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-28-2007 4:19 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-29-2007 8:31 PM Modulous has replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 145 (424788)
09-28-2007 3:36 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 3 of 145 (424790)
09-28-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
09-28-2007 11:41 AM


Dawkins' basic point is here as well - without faith, without the system in which everybody reinforces the idea that faith is good despite the lack of evidence (or even despite contradictory evidence), the death cults could not function as they do now.
are you then willing to defend the idea that atheistic or non-theistic nationalism can't breed the same thing? or that any variety of mobilizing political or social factor couldn't breed the same thing? humans are capable of being polarized and radicalized and those who seek power will utilize this no matter what mobilizing phychology or theology or whatever they choose to use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 09-28-2007 11:41 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by bluegenes, posted 09-28-2007 4:38 PM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 09-29-2007 4:41 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied
 Message 50 by Jazzns, posted 10-01-2007 3:27 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 4 of 145 (424792)
09-28-2007 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by macaroniandcheese
09-28-2007 4:19 PM


brennakimi writes:
atheistic or non-theistic nationalism...
What's atheism got to do with nationalism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-28-2007 4:19 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-28-2007 4:41 PM bluegenes has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 5 of 145 (424793)
09-28-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by bluegenes
09-28-2007 4:38 PM


nothing. but often, nationalism has a theistic tinge. i was excluding this from my query.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by bluegenes, posted 09-28-2007 4:38 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 09-28-2007 4:55 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 6 of 145 (424798)
09-28-2007 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by macaroniandcheese
09-28-2007 4:41 PM


Then certainly, there are all kinds of things in the world, like dogmatic idealism, nationalism etc. which cause strife, and are often described as evil. Dawkins is including religion amongst them.
His point needs to be made, as unlike the others, religion is often described as "spiritual" or "good". Considering its historical record, this is strange.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-28-2007 4:41 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-28-2007 5:21 PM bluegenes has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 7 of 145 (424800)
09-28-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by bluegenes
09-28-2007 4:55 PM


i'm simply saying that his assertion that without religious faith the level of commitment these individuals demonstrate wouldn't happen is indefensible.
His point needs to be made, as unlike the others, religion is often described as "spiritual" or "good". Considering its historical record, this is strange.
see, my problem is that i think logically and see that if the religion is being used by the power hungry who have any number of such tools at their disposal, then the problem is the power-hungry and not the tool they choose to abuse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 09-28-2007 4:55 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by bluegenes, posted 09-28-2007 5:44 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 8 of 145 (424805)
09-28-2007 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by macaroniandcheese
09-28-2007 5:21 PM


I think that what Mod really wants to discuss in the thread is that people have accused Dawkins and other anti-theists of arguing against a strawman version of religion.
see, my problem is that i think logically and see that if the religion is being used by the power hungry who have any number of such tools at their disposal, then the problem is the power-hungry and not the tool they choose to abuse.
And the likes of Dawkins see the problem as being inherent in religion itself.
Isn't basing views on "faith" automatically an abdication of reason, and disrespect for evidence?
Look at your own literalist brethren whom we see on this site, and some of the completely irrational views that they come up with.
He's saying to people like you that the promotion of the "faith comes first" attitude will automatically result in people like them.
Time and time again you see the attitude "my faith is as good as yours, evolutionist" on this forum.
But you know as well as I that the "evolutionists" on this site have a mixture of philosophies, and they only support the ToE on the basis of evidence. (We don't get to heaven for it, do we).
So is Dawkins' view of religion a strawman?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-28-2007 5:21 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-28-2007 7:32 PM bluegenes has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 9 of 145 (424813)
09-28-2007 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by bluegenes
09-28-2007 5:44 PM


He's saying to people like you that the promotion of the "faith comes first" attitude will automatically result in people like them.
who's promoting a "faith comes first" attitude? dawkins isn't against "faith comes first," he's against "faith at all."
But you know as well as I that the "evolutionists" on this site have a mixture of philosophies, and they only support the ToE on the basis of evidence.
i'm not convinced that most evolutionists can comprehend it. they just don't like religion.
So is Dawkins' view of religion a strawman?
i have no idea. i just don't think it's an accurate view of reality. it's really easy to say "the idea of god is evil." it's a little harder to say "there are a few bad people in the world and they abuse more or less harmless ideas to get other people to do bad things, and also people are in general easily corrupted." blaming the religion instead of the people who participate in it, is an excuse to ignore the evils hiding within yourself and that you are capable of the same things and are probably already guilty of some.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by bluegenes, posted 09-28-2007 5:44 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by bluegenes, posted 09-29-2007 8:20 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 10 of 145 (424879)
09-29-2007 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by macaroniandcheese
09-28-2007 4:19 PM


are you then willing to defend the idea that atheistic or non-theistic nationalism can't breed the same thing?
Nationalism would imply some kind of dogmatic faith in one's nation's own greatness regardless of evidence that the assertion is nonsense. One can be atheistic and also hold to a political system that breeds evil. That isn't the topic, though.
abe: if a death cult formed from nationalism, I'd be very surprised if an unreasonable unshakeable sense of righteous faith wasn't involved.
i'm simply saying that his assertion that without religious faith the level of commitment these individuals demonstrate wouldn't happen is indefensible.
Right - and Dawkins isn't making this argument. If you want to support the position that he is, then go right ahead.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-28-2007 4:19 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 11 of 145 (424922)
09-29-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by macaroniandcheese
09-28-2007 7:32 PM


who's promoting a "faith comes first" attitude?
Religions, the Abrahamic ones in particular. They are presented as being true, and you're supposed to have faith in their truths. And not only that, they're not supposed to be the tenth most important thing in your life. They're supposed to be the central foundation, the most important thing.
dawkins isn't against "faith comes first," he's against "faith at all."
Religious faith, certainly.
i'm not convinced that most evolutionists can comprehend it. they just don't like religion.
Most people who generally accept evolutionary theory could easily comprehend it if they bothered looking at the science, but most non-scientists don't bother too much with science. As for not liking religion, some evolutionists are religious, some of them are indifferent to religion, some are non-religious, and some are anti-religious.
In this country, most people are indifferent to religion most of the time
it's really easy to say "the idea of god is evil."
I don't know if he's ever used that phrase, but is that really the essence of what Dawkins is saying?
it's a little harder to say "there are a few bad people in the world and they abuse more or less harmless ideas to get other people to do bad things, and also people are in general easily corrupted."
Both are equally easy to say. Where you part company from Dawkins is that he thinks religions are anything but harmless ideas. But some religious people have suggested that he is not arguing against religion, but against a strawman version of it.
Don't you think that the idea of a God who might order the persecution of idol worshippers might be a harmful idea to people whose religions happen to involve a lot of statues? Millions of people on the Indian subcontinent might have led longer and more peaceful lives if such a jealous God had never been invented, and the Islamic version of it hadn't come their way.
If a religion, any religion, claims to be the true religion of the true God, don't you think its followers should be asked to show evidence for such a grand claim?
If philosophers claim the truth, they are asked to explain why.
If scientists claim truths, they are asked to show evidence.
Religion, apparently, is exempt from all this.
So Dawkins sees religion itself as harmful, not just as a thing that can be corrupted by bad people.
But is his view of religion the real religion, or a strawman, the topic wonders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-28-2007 7:32 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 145 (424983)
09-29-2007 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
09-28-2007 11:41 AM


Zeal - religious or non-religious fervor
Dawkins' basic point is here as well - without faith, without the system in which everybody reinforces the idea that faith is good despite the lack of evidence (or even despite contradictory evidence), the death cults could not function as they do now. That is what he means by the Catholics candle ceremony being the top of a slippery slope, of being the support to a backward belief system, of leading to dangerous ideas and actions.
This is faulty logic though on the part of Dawkins. Would the eradication of faith (something he uses daily, btw) really tip the scales of justice, so to speak? You don't see that as a hopelessly naive notion, especially in light of innumerable instances where the eradication of religion ended in total catastrophe?
I think the argument only really points to human beings and what avenue they choose to justify atrocities. Anyone can find some reason within their heart to come to dangerous ideals. Religious zealots have done it, and so have godless zealots.
Therefore, I don't see how Dawkins' conclusions apply to reality.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 09-28-2007 11:41 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 09-29-2007 8:36 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 09-30-2007 5:22 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 49 by Jazzns, posted 10-01-2007 3:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 69 by nator, posted 10-02-2007 7:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 145 (424985)
09-29-2007 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Hyroglyphx
09-29-2007 8:31 PM


Re: Zeal - religious or non-religious fervor
Hi, nem.
I think the argument only really points to human beings and what avenue they choose to justify atrocities.
Huh. Isn't this what you were trying to argue against in the racism thread?

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-29-2007 8:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-29-2007 9:00 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 145 (424991)
09-29-2007 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Chiroptera
09-29-2007 8:36 PM


Re: Zeal - religious or non-religious fervor
quote:
I think the argument only really points to human beings and what avenue they choose to justify atrocities.
Huh. Isn't this what you were trying to argue against in the racism thread?
Yes, in some respects. I don't think anyone can sit there and say that either religion or irreligion is the cause of atrocity. Since both camps have their fair share, we need to look to other reasons. Well, what's the common denominator? What threads runs through all of it that ties all of them together? The fact that they're human. There is something within mankind that, at the basest level, is prone to these sort of things. I would call this sin. You, no doubt, would object to the terminology, but there seems to be some basis for it.
BTW, thanks for reminding of the racism thread. I forgot about it.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 09-29-2007 8:36 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by BMG, posted 09-29-2007 11:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 15 of 145 (425006)
09-29-2007 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
09-29-2007 9:00 PM


Re: Zeal - religious or non-religious fervor
I don't think anyone can sit there and say that either religion or irreligion is the cause of atrocity. Since both camps have their fair share, we need to look to other reasons.
Would you mind providing supporting evidence for this assertion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-29-2007 9:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-30-2007 12:21 AM BMG has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024