Thinking religion is bollocks doesn't equate to supporting Dawkins!

Like I said in my post he comes across badly in the book and while many of the ideas in it were already familiar to me and fit with my own thinking I also found his faith in his own mental models ironic.

I added to my initial comment on Dave's post, as I may have been unintentionally unkind (Dave P. is someone I like very very much and respect and admire enormously).

I think he knows that and may have taken my initial comment without any injury, but I felt I owed him the benefit of the doubt, and so hopefully dissolved any ill feeling my comment may have created. I was only wondering why he bothered to have comments if (as stated) he has not so much interest in doing what I feel is the basic respectful thing of acknowledging them once someone has gone to the time and trouble of reading his thoughts and offering a thoughtful comment in return, whether dissection, amplification or plain disagreement.

OK, I accept that you may not have fully supported Dawkins; but I still think you are over influenced by a calvinist upbringing :-)
I also agree that unintelligent name calling is not confined to Dawkins ....
Now you did suggest I put something up on this subject, so I have. Go for it ....

Fromm in Man For Himself has the best short and clear description of the basic bias (and problem ?) with Calvin (and Luther) that I think I have read ....

"This emphasis on the nothingness and wickedness of the individual implies that there is nothing he should like and respect about himself. The doctrine is rooted in self-contempt and self-hatred. Calvin makes this point very clear: he speaks of self-love as "a pest". If the individual finds something on the strength of which he finds pleasure in himself, he betrays this sinful self-love. This fondness for himself will make him sit in judgment over others and despise them. Therefore to be fond of oneself or to like anythingin oneself is one of the greatest sins. It is supposed to exclude love for others andto be identical with selfishness" pp. 125-6

Nothing I know about or of Euan made me suspect an overly Calvinist upbringing ;-)

"Now on the two previously referenced blogs as I was the sole voice for tolerance in response to attacks on religion". By which I presume you mean the attacks on religion by the other blog contributers were intolerant? Are all attacks on religion inherently intolerant? It could be infered from this comment that this is your view, and if so, surely this is in itself a straw man?

I would not characterise Mary's review on her blog as intolerant, nor the comment of Mark, nor Len, nor some of Greg's, and I would disagree with a characterisation of myself as intolerant, while accepting that some of my comments may have been (mildly).

Are all questions about the truth of religion attacks? Who decides when questioning becomes attacking?

In your last comment on the Thinking Meat blog you say "It behoves anyone taking a position based on science not to engage in either/or dichotomies". Well okay, but you seem to suggest that agreeing with anything that Dawkins writes means agreeing with him completely on all things. It sounds to me like you are creating an either/or dichotomy here--we must either agree with you, or agree with Dawkins.

I look forward to being corrected... :)

Now this is fun ....

Sorry Toby, you are right to correct me. I was not arguing that any attack on religion is wrong, but that Dawkin's argument is flawed. I should therefore had said that I was the only one taking that position. mary and Euan both either in their blog, or in subsequent comments indicated a more rational/reasoning approach.

Jon, I am saying (toungue firmly in cheek) that Euan is reacting to Calvinsim, not using Calvinism.

An interesting addition to the above. Another review of Dawkins makes interesting reading. I found it here with a very good overview - see below.

Richard Dawkins, Oxford professor of science and bestselling author of books of militant atheism, has not received the warmest of welcomes in the media for his latest effort to persuade you that religion is nonsensical, The God Delusion. The New York Times didn't recommend it. Neither did the London Review of Books. And in a stroke of editorial genius, Harper's--a magazine not exactly known for its warm feelings toward religion--assigned the book to the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Gilead, Marilynne Robinson, who, I think it's safe to say, quietly sent it out to pasture.

In a time when myriad commentators repeat the opinion that the secular media operates with a nearly explicit anti-religious bias, what are we make of it when the Atheist-in-Chief finds it difficult to get his anti-religious instruction manual positively reviewed in the anti-religious press?

I think many of the beliefs associated with organised religion are daft but that does not I think that those who believe them are daft.

I grew up an evangelical baptist so you could say that I am simply reacting to a strict childhood. Which may be true but would also be patronising.

For me as an atheist, there are 3 issues:
- Most religions are not completely dumb. There is good advice about the kind of life to lead & right courses of action.
- Religion provides a sense of community with fellow believers & purpose in life that few other activities can (e.g. certain political movements that seems quasi-religious). Atheism is very poor at providing these - it basically says you have to get on with it yourself.
- We all believe dumb stuff, so the intellectual high ground is an extremely shakey place.

At the same time, I find the growing prominence of Dawkins & Sam Harris in the US heartening (even if Dawkins overplays his hand). Can you imagine an avowed atheist running for president there?

You agree Dave? Oh, er... right then. Ummm...

Ah! Right...

It is hardly controversial for me to say that religion is not all bad. Dave has in other places made note of how many of the bad things associated with religion are, in the end, human behaviours, rather than necessarily religious behaviours. If this holds, then surely the reverse must also be true--that all the good things about religion are ultimately human behaviours and actions, not inherently due to religion?

Therefore, I suggest that atheism is not "poor at providing these [benefits]" as Matt suggests. Given they share the source, these beneficial behaviours are as available to atheists as theists.

A revised or extended argument that says these behaviours are exhibited less by atheists is more interesting, as it leads to wondering why this might be. I suggest, more in the interests of debate than any proper knowledge of the history of charity and its relationship to religious structures in the Western world since, say, the Enlightenment (breath), that the very existence of pervasive, organised, wealthy and influential religious structures over the centuries has caused these positive and beneficial behaviours to be captured and constrained by, and delivered through, religion and religious activity.

Further, the more we look to throw-off our cultures' religious pasts, the more we liberate these behaviours from religion, and consequently the more opportunity we have to embed these behaviours in the secular world.

(breath out)

Hey Toby - I get a bit carried away with the polemic from time to time (like most) so its only fair to admit it when I do. Having said that, all my other comments stand and I think the idea that one is "liberated from ..." religion is not valid. One can be "liberated by religion" as well. Atheism can be a cant (Dawkins) which prevents an open mind just as much as doctrinaire christianity

You might want to read Berlin's "Critics of the Englighenment" book by the way ...

"One can be "liberated by religion" as well. Atheism can be a cant (Dawkins) which prevents an open mind just as much as doctrinaire christianity"

I still struggle with what you mean by religion Dave. If you mean subscription to a set of beliefs that assume the existence of a personified deity then you have as much chance of proving that to me as you do of convincing me of the existence of fairies.

If you mean a set of beliefs that sustain people and help make sense of the world I would argue that we can have those without the need for religion. There is a lot of stuff in the bible that gets excused, ignored or worked around by religious people these days. What are they basing those judgements on? God was made in man's image rather than the other way around and that image changes.

And while we are at it why not have a new great book? What about a few new miracles or revelations? Why did it all dry up 2000 years ago?

As to atheism I have written on my own blog that we need a new word. Agnosticism implies being unsure in a way that I am not and yet atheism implies a level of certainty that is as misplaced as religion.

My own feeling is that not believing in something for which there has never been a shred of evidence is not something that should require justification nor even a name!

Something that I think has been lost somewhat is that most (and I am going off memory here, not having the book in front of me) of the God Delusion addresses whether God exists, rather than the merits of religion per se. The two are naturally strongly linked but not the same thing. I wonder, on refuting the evidence/theories/beliefs of the existence of God, do you find Dawkins more reasonable, less dogmatic, more compelling? Or is this of less interest to you?

Yes, Dawkins attacks religion, but that is not all he does. I wonder if in the same way that we should avoid his either/or dichotomies, we should be sure not to disregard all of his arguments due to the weakness of some of them?

Euan,
Your view of religion is based on a personified God (in the sense of Sunday School tacher)and an belief in a book as the absolute word of God. There are people who hold to that. There are other alternatives that are more than a "set of beliefs" (read Rahner, McCabe and others). If you study comparative religion you will see a vast richness of thinking. If you look at a body of material from anthropology and elsewhere you will see similar richness which also demonstrates why a religious impulse, in various manifestations seems to have been a part of our evolution.

Toby

Dawkins takes the same defintion, seeing God as something physical whose existence can be established or denied on the same basis as I establish if an apple has fallen from the tree. Dawkins also uses a generalised attack on religion by associating it with any historical pheunomina he dislikes. It would, as Terry say smake even a first year theology student wince.

Both of you - the quote from Terry about Dawkins (and the other referenced review) give a wider and more balanced appraoch. His metaphor of the book of birds is apposite.

Call it spiritual impulse and I'm with you. We may simply be being separated by semantics here. The trouble with using the word religion is that one risks including the various flavours and make it easy for others to make assumptions.

Dave,
I have religiously kept a vigil of this debate among some wonderful minds who bring much more scholarly understanding than I could ever offer. However, here are my thoughts: How does one separate religious behaviors from human behaviors? Is there some special place out in space where religion resides separate from man's imagination? My understanding of religion is that it serves the purpose of belief in something to help in filling the void that haunts the elegant reflective human mind. We humans are so curious and creative that we have the freedom and capacity to create belief (itself) and about anything. Those of us who need proof perhaps are struggling with our own creation,and so we insist that other believe something that will not upset our applecart too much. Perhaps then it won't be so lonely and it will give us a feeling of more credibility. I don't say this disrespectfully, but rather with the full understanding of how shaken any of us can become when we are shaken from our belief systems. And yes, many of these beliefs were handed down to us, but some human came up with them and we have the freedom not to believe them. It's just that not believing means you need something in that place. The insistence that others believe what we believe is what is rotten in the "State of Denmark". One thing for sure, it does provide us with lots of amusement and I don't mean that tongue in cheek. I mean that it exercises our mind and our emotions in the most profound way. What others believe gives me the most trouble when it manifests as a right to take human life based on some religious belief. No tolerance for that. I know that you agree with that.
Gloria

Thanks for a very thoughtful response Gloria. I plan a more extensive post on this - to respond in part to Euan's challenge. One of the things I plan to argue there is that we cannot separate religion from being human (which does not mean you have to believe in hell fire and damnation. Militant atheism (a la Dawkins) is simply filling that part of human identity. I think there is evidence that it is a "free loader" that arose from the solution of human language from abstractions. Of course I agree that no one should take human live purely on the basis of any belief (well I can imagine some circumstances but they are extreme). However I think that religious education (for example) in the context of different societies is a critical part of human collective intelligence. I need to spend some time on this however, so will do so next month given the current schedule (its a part of the book)