Dawkins: Closest Thing Atheists Have to a Suicide Bomber
According to Prose and Doggerel
I shall join hands with those irksome pop-culture "philosophers" , Trey Parker and Matt Stone in assaulting one Richard Dawkins - the closest Atheists have come to a suicide bomber. And in critiquing Dawkins, I must say that I am not in the best place: I have not read even one of his books. But I have heard him speak on youtube, which, people will certify is the next best thing to reading his books. And for smug loudmouths like yours truly, those speeches provide ample fodder to judge him.
I am not debating Prof. Dawkins' beliefs. I am an atheist myself and I do appreciate why he thinks the way he does. I do get irked when I see irrational blind faith, but I have the good sense to keep it to myself. Prof Dawkins does not.
[emphasis added]
How is it that Richard Dawkins is the "closest thing atheists have to a suicide bomber"? Has Dawkins ever engaged in acts of violence? Recommended acts of violence? Encouraged acts of violence? Never — on the contrary, one of his primary arguments against religion has been the way they encourage violence. To say that Dawkins' total lack of violence is the "closest thing atheists have to a suicide bomber" strikes me as something like saying that being homeless brings one close to the lifestyle of Donald Trump. It's a statement that can only make sense if meant ironically, to express the opposite of what the words would normally indicate. Unfortunately, this person doesn't seem to be trying to be ironic.
The author claims to be an atheist, and perhaps he is — but if that's the case, why spell atheists with a capital letter when it's not a proper noun? I normally only see this from Christians who are trying to convey the message that atheism is a philosophy or religion. Why presume to "assault" Dawkins without reading "even one of his books"? Watching some YouTube videos is better than nothing, I suppose, but it's hardly a replacement for being aware of his full arguments.
Moreover, what is this person trying to "critique" if they aren't going to debate Dawkins' beliefs? What does that mean, "I'm going to attack this person, but I won't address their arguments or claims'? As far as I can tell, this person doesn't disagree with what Dawkins thinks, but merely disagrees with the fact that Dawkins says what he thinks — that Dawkins doesn't simply sit down and shut up. That, too, is an attitude that I typically only see among Christians who can't handle the arguments and ideas being presented.
Part of the tagline for this blog is "Nauseating grandiloquence." It's half right, I suppose.
Comments
YIKES! Thanks for the head’s up on the word atheist. I always thought it was a proper noun and as a result capitalized it. I guess that makes me a grammar impaired atheist.
I hardly think YouTube videos do Dawkins justice. In fact, I expected more from the videos after reading is books. The God Delusion was so well refined that I thought his YouTube videos would really drive home some of his main points. But I was wrong. Don’t get me wrong, I think Dawkins is one of the greatest things that has happened to atheists, but read his books before you judge him.
I left a polite, but critical comment on his blog, which I hope will point him in the right direction.
Alan.
That Dawkins doesn’t simply sit down and shut up. That, too, is an attitude that I typically only see among Christians who can’t handle the arguments and ideas being presented.
This is quite funny, considering how my little comment over at Atheist Revolution about stereotyping and the vicarious guilt concept of caste religions being so entirely misunderstood by about three out of the five people who commented on it.
I’d never say that Dawkins should shut up, he should, however, not misrepresent and stereotype. And he should go back and review probability mathematics. He could do with a refresher course in the basics. Like what you can and can’t do with it.
Austin, I’d really like to not have to post about you without talking with you about it first. Perhaps we can come to an understanding. You’re the one who misrepresented me to start. Talk to me. You know how.
I have noticed a trend, no, an AXIOM, that for every blatant flaw that theism has and is pointed out with demonstrable evidence, it never fails that eventually, they claim atheism has that flaw, not as a “you have it too!” retort but as if they just came up with that idea originally. Check it out… look back at all the claims they make about atheism, and note how there are very similar if not exactly that of the demonstrable points we make against theism. Further, note how their claims are not demonstrable. It’s so juvenile, I can’t believe I still see it happening, that they don’t see it themselves.
“No, ur more fundamentalist than me”
There was a particularly well written retort to this kind of attitude here: (”Those Fanatical Atheists”
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=62d4e647-9088-47dc-8a46-6397e3a6e30d
(I’m at work and I’m not able to post in his blog.)
The blogger is a half-***ed atheist who really doesn’t have a clue as to what Dawkins, and atheism, are about. I wouldn’t give that blog any more play than it’s already received. ~G
regarding Dawkins, I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate how he’s at least making some waves in america where ignorance is freaking rampant. I would however implore him to create a book tantamount to the god delusion or selfish gene, that the general population can understand. A lot of people who are not stupid can’t follow scientific jargon and grow weary and lose a terrific authors message. Also why doesn’t Dawkins mention the prison pop. has virtually no atheist.
regarding Dawkins, I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate how he’s at least making some waves in america where ignorance is freaking rampant. I would however implore him to create a book tantamount to the god delusion or selfish gene, that the general population can understand. A lot of people who are not stupid can’t follow scientific jargon and grow weary and lose a terrific authors message. Also why doesn’t Dawkins mention the prison pop. has virtually no atheist.
As for the capitalization Of Atheist - why not? If the religionists of any stripe can capitailize theh names of their respective cults, why can’t we rational people capitalize our name? I look at it as a matter of pride that Atheists and Atheism should be capitalzed. This was one of the first lessons I learned from Madalyn when I joined American Atheists 21 years ago.
Words like “Christian” and “Buddhist” are proper nouns which denote defined movements or belief systems. Atheism and atheist are not proper nouns which do not denote defined movements or belief systems. Capitalization does not communicate pride, importance, or anything similar. Capitaliation would communicate the idea that an “Atheist” is a member of a belief system or ideology called “Atheism.” There is no such thing because atheists believe all sorts of different things — you and I cannot be assumed to have anything in common aside from our lack of belief in gods.
So the lack of belief in gods in not a defined movement or belief system? The lack of belief is not a belief? Sounds like you’re splitting hairs to better prop up your argument.
I see nothing wrong with capitalizing atheism/atheist. Prior to 1800, all nouns in English were capitalized. In German, they still are. Since English is a Germanic language, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to capitalize nouns. I believe it’s simply custom that English speakers don’t.
No, it’s not.
No, it’s not - lacking a belief is no more itself a belief than lacking a hobby is itself a hobby.
It’s not splitting hairs, it’s basic logic: an absence of X is not the same as the presence of X.
There is no belief, ideology, or belief system shared by Buddhists, Objectivists, liberals, conservatives, Raelians, Jews, libertarians, monarchists, Religious Humanists, etc. who are all atheists.
It’s ungrammatical.
You’re not arguing for capitalizing all nouns (which would also be ungrammatical), but rather for capitalizing a couple of nouns in particular. The reasons you offered were not historical and grammatical, but ideological. In either case, it’s still an error: common nouns are not capitalized in English today.
Probably a pretend atheist of the, “I was a teenage atheist who saw the light” ilk.
Firstly, thanks for critiquing my blog here. Let me clarify a few issues here:
1. The captitalization of the A in Atheist is was more out of neligence than anything else. Don’t read too much into it. And I will apologize for offending the queen (for taking liberties with her language) if she aplogizes for economically exploiting the sub-continent for 100 years and if the English cricket team apologizes for the recent drubbing that it gave India in the recent one-day match
2. In conveying a point, I do believe exaggeration is a legitimate tool. In saying “the closest atheists have come to a suicide bomber”, I am certainly not insinuating that atheists are going around the place blowing themselves up. All I’m contending here is that Prof. Dawkins is an atheist hard-liner in that he is quite irreverent to another’s deep held beliefs. Doesn’t that remind one of Islamic / Hindu / Christian extremists?
I think there was a recent issue of Sientific American in which there was a debate between Prof. Dawkins and some more moderate atheist (I forget who). If you look behind the intentional rhetoric in my blog, you will find my position quite similar to that of the moderate atheist.
My issue is that all of you guys have blind faith in Dawkins - a crime, in my book, similar to the one commited by those who have blind faith in Nation, “God” or any other man made entity. I urge all of you to develop some critical thinking on your own.
No. Why should it? Is there something about being irreverent that makes one similar to a violent religious extremist? If a liberal is irreverent about conservative political beliefs, does that remind you of violent religious extremists? If a Keynsian economist is irreverent about Marxist economic beliefs, does that remind you of violent religious extremists? If a theater critic is irreverent about a recent and bad play, does that remind you of violent religious extremists?
You seem to believe that it’s a legitimate tool for you to use, but you don’t seem to be willing to consider that others might be using it and cutting them the same slack you are expecting for yourself.
Who is ‘you guys’?
What do you mean by ‘blind faith’?
This strikes me as a pretty serious accusation. Can you offer any sort of support for it?
Accusing other of not having or using critical thinking skills is a pretty strong statement. It would be intellectual dishonest not to support it.
“Dawkins being the closest thing Atheists have to a suicide bomber,” can be seen at two levels of irony.
1. If that’s as close as it gets, let’s put our hands together for Athiesm.
2. He’s out there in the world, dropping little bombs of, in this case, wisdom. See #1.
If Dawkins is the nearest we atheists have to a suicide bomber, isn’t that a good thing? It means we are not prone to killing those who disagree with us or using terroristic tactics to cow others into using reason (as if that were possible lol). I’ll take it as a complement.
If this guy is saying that words are like bombs, and that offending people is like blowing them limb from limb, he has some serious thinking to do. Even if it is hyperbole.
Comments 17 and 18 - Abso-fragging-lutely.
If RD is the closest atheists have come to a suicide bomber than that makes me proud to be an atheist! Go atheism! If atheism is a religion like the faithful contend, then on the basis of this evidence maybe it’s the true religion of peace. The one everyone has been searching for for so long.
Look at what RD has done. He’s…WRITTEN BOOKS! He’s…MADE TELEVISION PROGRAMMES!! Even worse, he’s…GIVEN INTERVIEWS WHERE HE STATES HIS CASE!!
Quickly, we must set up national days of mourning so these atrocities will never be forgotten or repeated!
Question for Austin:
If atheists link themselves (even loosely) together in protest against/objection to belief in the divine, then why would it be inaccurate to think of atheists as an opposition movement: Atheists?
I don’t know if it is an issue of grammar (capitalization) as much as it is an issue of vocabulary, and if English is a living language, then that means we are adding/subtracting to the vocabulary as we go.
(E.g. Those who “protested” the beliefs/practices of the Roman Catholic church became known as “Protestants”. They came to be identified based on a common objection, moreso than common beliefs.)
Anyhow, I think “suicide bomber” is a bit off the mark; but I’ve called Richard Dawkins an atheist version of Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell…
Because obviously it wouldn’t include all atheists yet there would be considerable confusion between “atheists” (everyone lacking belief in gods) and “Atheists” (those involved in this particular movement).
Why?
“Anyhow, I think “suicide bomber” is a bit off the mark; but I’ve called Richard Dawkins an atheist version of Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell…”
Why?
######
Robertson/Falwell sought to initiate social movements based on their POVs that would shape society to their views: Robertson through the use of mass-media; Falwell through a university setting.
I believe Dawkins is trying to spearhead the same sort of thing both through the use of mass-media and through the university setting.
Roberston/Falwell only represent a certain brand of “Christianity”, and their popularity/movements have resulted in both (1) cults of personality around them and (2) storms of critics that decry them both from inside Christianity and outside.
Dawkins does not simply promote an “objection” to belief in God, but has also promoted a certain brand of worldview based on scientific naturalism and evolution. For him, evolutionary theory is more than simply a way to look at biological development, but is a lens through which history, psychology, cosmology, etc. ought to be viewed. Dawkins has both inspired a cult of personality and inspired hailstorms of criticism from both believers and non-believers alike.
Falwell/Robertson have resorted to shock-value rhetoric to promote themselves/their worldviews. They either sincerely believe some of the ridiculous things they say, or they know it will make headlines (good or bad) to draw attention.
I believe Dawkins engages in a similar tactic. Although his POV is pushed as simply a rational alternative to the ridiculous superstition of religion, he often engages in shoot-from-the-hip rhetoric that betrays the notion of a rational discourse and bears the hallmarks of a fire-and-brimstone preacher trying to shout down an audience. He either sincerely believes these things, or he’s going for shock-value to draw attention to the movement.
Falwell/Robertson foray into areas of learning/discourse where they have precious little knowledge/expertise (politics, science, the meaning of a hurricane?) and apply their worldviews to these things with a brash certitude.
When Dawkins steps out of the realm of evolutionary biology, much of what he has to say is (IMO) amateurish ranting dressed up in witty and brash certitude.
I could go on, but these are some of the main things that stand out. Obviously, some of this is my subjective perspective/opinion, but these are things that have been noted/noticed by believers/non-believers alike (with regards to Dawkins)…
So have lots of people. Why pick them in particular as a comparison?
Every Christian pastor/minister only represents “a certain brand of Christianity,” so that’s not why they were criticized.
Every “objection” to theism must be an objection on the basis of something. His basis is scientific naturalism and evolution. Every objection to theism will generally offer alternatives; he offers scientific naturalism.
I’m not seeing how this compares to Robertson or Falwell.
Inspiring criticism is hardly a strong point of criticism. I’d like to see the evidence of a “cult of personality,” though.
Feel free to cite examples.
Again, examples?
Regarding your first comment-response:
I pick them in particular as comparisons because they are on opposite ends of the same spectrum in this way: Generally speaking, Falwell/Robertson believe religion-inspired (Christian-inspired) thinking is the key linchpin to bettering the world. Dawkins believes that religious thinking is precisely what needs to be destroyed in order to create a better world.
With regards to your middle comments, I’m not entirely sure how to address your comment-responses. Perhaps I wasn’t entirely clear on my angle, and I apologize (the drawback to having a “blogversation”!):
The picture I was attempting to sketch is this: A person sets themselves up to champion a cause, only to see proponents of that same cause disown that person as “not-my-champion”. I think we can agree that Dawkins is generally considered the most recognizable and popular face of “atheism” right now. In the same way, Robertson/Falwell were generally considered two of the most recognizable and popular faces of “evangelical Christianity”. However, there seem to be a fair few folks among the atheists who do not want their cause/views of atheism to be automatically associated with Dawkins - same to be said for Christians (even of the more conservative/evangelical type) and Falwell/Robertson.
Example of shock-value rhetoric:
“Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.”
This was a statement Pat Robertson made in criticizing liberal judicial activism in the U.S. I find this notion to be objectionable.
“Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing up the child up Catholic in the first place.”
Dawkins wrote this in ‘The God Delusion’. He goes on to say it was an “off the cuff remark made in the heat of the moment”, while also noting the applause that he basked in after making it. Then he spends another page or 2 not-so-subtly defending the notion. Are there any other atheists out there who want to back the notion that being raised Catholic is psychologically more damaging than experiencing sexual abuse?
1. There are lots of people who think that religion-inspired/Christian-inspired thinking is key to bettering the world, including far more politically liberal Christians.
2. Where does Dawkins recommend destroying religion?
Where has Dawkins set himself up as a champion for a cause (as opposed to, say, a vocal advocate)?
Yes, but to what degree has this been his design and to what degree is it a product of circumstances?
Robertson was Pentecostal, Falwell was fundamentalist. Neither qualifies as “evangellical” Christianity. For that, you need to look to Billy Graham, Jim Wallis, William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, or J.P. Moreland.
Choosing non-evangelical Christians with a heavily political and theocratic agenda over influential evangelicals with a more religious agenda makes a huge difference in the sort of contrast you’re making.
Given how few prominent atheists there are who are advocate for the interests of atheists, it’s impossible for an atheist not to be implicitly associated with those public figures. This isn’t an issue which Christians face, thus creating a real problem for your comparison.
Example of shoot-from-the-hip rhetoric and amateurish foray into an area of non-expertise in order to overstate a point:
“Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It’s no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.”
So Pat Robertson is not just a preacher; he is a holocaust historian? And not only that, but he has knowledge of all the abuse that every minority in history has suffered, such that he can claim that what he perceives happening to Christians in the U.S. today is “more terrible?”
“The four gospels that made it into the official canon were chosen, more or less arbitrarily, out of a larger sample of at least a dozen…”
“Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not, in general, regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history…”
Again, taken from ‘The God Delusion’. And when did Dawkins become a ‘text and form critic’? The first statement is simply wrong on its face; and you do not have to believe in the inspiration of the canon or think that it was even put together well, to know that much much more went on than simply picking names out of a hat. Now I am nowhere near a professional “text and form critic”, but I have read and studied a fair share of the literature from scholars of various stripes, and I have never encountered one that categorically dismisses the historicity of the entire New Testament. Pieces of the gospels have received their fair share of criticism, and perhaps Dawkins was referring to that only (those are the only docs he mentions), but there is a basic difference between the “gospels” and the “New Testament”. Does he know this? Was it a sloppy oversight?
If you want to be honest in addressing this, you need to acknowledge that he quoted a letter from a Catholic woman whose experience was exactly that of his off-the-cuff hypothesis, and he states his position thus:
Given that, I’ll answer yes: it is possible for psychological abuse of children to out-class physical and, moreover, that some traditional religious teachings may qualify as psychological abuse.
If you want to argue that this is nothing more than “shock-value rhetoric,” please do so. If you want to argue that it is comparable to what Robertson said about the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then please do so. If you want to argue this position is somehow “beyond the pale” and a ridiculously false belief, then please do so.
I, however, find it a reasonable, cautious position with more than little data behind it.
(* Where does Dawkins recommend destroying religion? *)
I did not say that. I said that Dawkins would like to see religious “thinking” destroyed.
(* Where has Dawkins set himself up as a champion for a cause (as opposed to, say, a vocal advocate)? *)
We’re sort of parsing definitions here.
(* Robertson was Pentecostal, Falwell was fundamentalist. Neither qualifies as “evangellical” Christianity. For that, you need to look to Billy Graham, Jim Wallis, William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, or J.P. Moreland. *)
On this you are simply incorrect. Both are considered prominent evangelical leaders. Trust me, I was an “evangelical” for many years. Both of their organizations (Moral Majority as well as the 700 Club) were key organizations that shaped and defined evangelicalism in the U.S. Pentecostalism, fundamentalism and evangelicalism are not mutually exclusive and there is plenty of overlap.
(* If you want to argue that this is nothing more than “shock-value rhetoric,” please do so. If you want to argue that it is comparable to what Robertson said about the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then please do so. If you want to argue this position is somehow “beyond the pale” and a ridiculously false belief, then please do so.
I, however, find it a reasonable, cautious position with more than little data behind it. *)
But now it would be your turn to provide some data/examples that being raised Catholic is psychologically more damaging than sexual abuse.
So far we have one anecdote from Dawkins…
Is it possible to destroy religious thinking and still have religion? Anyway, feel free to point where he has called for the destruction of religious thinking.
I think I’m just asking you to point to evidence for your claims.
Since neither belonged to evangelical Christianity, they could only be considered evangelical leaders by the ignorant.
Regardless, though, there are big differences between them and other evangelical leaders whom you chose not to make a comparison with. Therefore those differences must be key to your comparison — i.e., you must have chosen them rather than others because of what makes them different.
Actually, if you want me to provide any data for anything, it would have to be for the specific positions that has been made, not one you’ve made up: it is at least possible for psychological abuse of children to out-class physical, and that religious upbringing can be psychologically abusive.
Which of the two do you dispute, and when are you going to support your claim that this is just shock-value rhetoric comparable to what Robertson said about the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
Picking out of a hat is “random,” Dawkins said they were picked “arbitrarily.” Do you sincerely not recognize the difference between the two?
(* Is it possible to destroy religious thinking and still have religion? Anyway, feel free to point where he has called for the destruction of religious thinking. *)
Where Dawkins equates religion with a “virus of the mind”, I think we can agree that he’d like to see the virus destroyed. Would you dispute that? In the preface of ‘God Delusion’, he states simply that his intention is to make atheists out of believers.
(* Since neither belonged to evangelical Christianity, they could only be considered evangelical leaders by the ignorant.*)
Here, you’ve just got to concede a mistake. Evangelical organizations and preachers consider them stalwart evangelical Christians. They considered themselves evangelical Christians. If the source you are using to define “evangelical” says otherwise, then they are wrong. If you can show me an “evangelical” who says that Pat/Jerry was not one of them it would be the first that I know of.
“Ladies and Gentleman, evangelical Christians support Israel because we believe that the words of Moses and the ancient prophets of Israel were inspired by God.” – from Pat Robertson speech on PatRobertson.com
“The evangelical movement as a political force is in a serious state of transition. With the passing of Jerry Falwell, evangelicals are struggling to try to find the kind of cohesion he represented. That was going on even before he died.” – speech by Rev. Page on the passing of Jerry Falwell
Again, you seemed to imply that being “Pentecostal” or “fundamentalist” meant, by definition, that one could not also be considered an evangelical. That is incorrect.
(* Regardless, though, there are big differences between them and other evangelical leaders whom you chose not to make a comparison with. Therefore those differences must be key to your comparison — i.e., you must have chosen them rather than others because of what makes them different.*)
I chose them based on their popularity and reknown. Sure there are plenty of other evangelical Christian leaders out there, but these are easily 2 of the most famous and influential. Just like Dawkins is easily one of the most popular and famous atheists.
(* Actually, if you want me to provide any data for anything, it would have to be for the specific positions that has been made, not one you’ve made up: it is at least possible for psychological abuse of children to out-class physical, and that religious upbringing can be psychologically abusive.
Which of the two do you dispute, and when are you going to support your claim that this is just shock-value rhetoric comparable to what Robertson said about the 9/11 terrorist attacks? *)
I dispute neither. Only I would add that sexual/physical abuse is also psychological. And I thank you for helping me complete the circle and my point.
What Dawkins said at his lecture (and subsequently wrote in his book) regarding sex abuse and being raised Catholic was a more “shocking” version of a related point, which was then presented in far milder terms, as you iterated.
Even poor ole’ Pat’s statement about 9/11 bombers and liberal judicial activism has a kernel of sensibility when you water-down the “shock-value” and couch it in more sensible language such as: Conservative Christians, who also hold to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, believe that liberal judicial activism threatens aspects of their faith and view of how U.S. society ought to be shaped through the making and interpreting of laws.
Dawkins said something heated, off-the-cuff, something “shocking” to draw attention to a point – that is my understanding of “shock-value” rhetoric. My issue with it is this: It works for headlines, attention-getting, wowing an audience to give them something to remember/think about; but if rational discourse is what we are trying to have, it only skews the issues.
(* Picking out of a hat is “random,” Dawkins said they were picked “arbitrarily.” Do you sincerely not recognize the difference between the two? *)
Technically, “arbitrary” can be defined as “coming about seemingly at random or by chance”. But I’ll admit that is not its primary definition, and probably wasn’t what Dawkins had in mind when he wrote it; and so my off-the-cuff(!) comparison to picking out of a hat would seem mistaken. Even so, the assembly of the canon was not arbitrary. There was a basic criteria that was honored.
Or maybe he’d like to see it just wither away. There are lots of paths to the conclusion of it not being around.
Dawkins is careful to make it clear that his anti-theistic argument are aimed at particular conceptions of “God” and not other. Given that, I don’t think there is much basis for insisting that he wants to destroy all religious thinking, especially if he hasn’t specifically said that he wants to destroy any particular religious thinking.
I’m sure some did, but as far as denominational divisions in Christianity go, they weren’t evangelical. Too many atheists use fundamentalist, evangelical, and even Pentecostal as if they were interchangeable when they aren’t. There are important theological distinctions, even if in politics all three end up saying the same things.
Some of the confusion may be over using “evangelical” as a political label and “evangelical” as a denominational/religious label.
Others I listed are also popular and well-known.
So are you saying that Moreland or Graham are as good of a comparison?
I agree that physical abuse of any sort includes psychological components. However, I was of course focusing on abuse that doesn’t cross the line into the physical (or, if it does, it’s rare). So how can you not disagree with his position and then say that it’s just made for shock value?
That an off-the-cuff remark is phrased in a more shocking manner than the same point phrased more carefully for a book doesn’t mean that he’s just making shock-value claims. The problem with your position is made worse by the fact that we don’t have his original words, just his memory of them. Maybe his original words were less cautious than he remembers. Maybe they were more cautious.
This only works if you can argue that it’s reasonable to believe that the more incautious formulation was made deliberately for the sake of shock, as opposed to simply being a product of not having the chance to give enough thought to the best formulation of a not-fully-formed idea. How many times have you said (or written) something which, on later reflection, you realized could be phrased better, more clear, more cautiously, etc.? How would feel being accused of only saying that for “shock value” rather than because you hadn’t through it all through?
If Dawkins had a history of making lots of outrageous statements in speeches then backing them down to a kernel of truth in writings, then that might be reasonable to believe. We’d have to wonder why he didn’t just learn his lesson and be more careful. If Dawkins had a history of making lots of outrageous statements in speeches and then not backing them down, then that might be reasonable to believe, but it might be more reasonable to believe that he really does agree with all that outrageousness.
But I don’t see any of that being true with Dawkins.
I’d emphasize the seeming here — something appears to me to be arbitrary because I can’t see any pattern or reason to it, though in fact there might be.
The use of arbitrary criteria could, I think, justify regarding the results as arbitrary. For example, in discussing the “meme” of religion, he writes “The later stages, where a religion becomes organized, elaborate and arbitrarily different from other religions, are quite well handled by the theory of memeplexes…” Certainly the differences in religions are not due to any person’s “will or judgment,” nor is it the case that there weren’t specific cultural, economic, and political forces at work.
It seems to me that his use of “arbitrary” is something along the lines of “not according to objective, independent standards.” Since the same people who created the standards also applied the standards and presumably had vested religious or power interests in the outcome of the canon, that use of “arbitrary” seems applicable.
Even if not, this hardly seems like “shock value” rhetoric.
(* Or maybe he’d like to see it just wither away. *)
We’ll just have to differ on this perception. I don’t see how someone whose stated goal is to make atheists out of believers could be seen as simply hoping that certain kinds of religious thinking wither away. If he sincerely believes the things that he writes about religion, then he SHOULD want to see religious thinking destroyed.
(* I’m sure some did, but as far as denominational divisions in Christianity go, they weren’t evangelical. Too many atheists use fundamentalist, evangelical, and even Pentecostal as if they were interchangeable when they aren’t. There are important theological distinctions, even if in politics all three end up saying the same things. Some of the confusion may be over using “evangelical” as a political label and “evangelical” as a denominational/religious label. *)
At one time, several hundred years ago, “evangelicalism” was associated with Luther’s church. That still may be the case in Germany (I do not know). However, in the U.S. “evangelicalism” refers not to a denomination, but to a trans-denominational umbrella that covers many different kinds of Protestants. Yes, it has a socio-political dimension thanks to the likes of Pat/Jerry, but they are “evangelicals” in a religious and socio-political sense. (Unless we are in Germany!).
(* Others I listed are also popular and well-known. So are you saying that Moreland or Graham are as good of a comparison? *)
I don’t think Moreland is nearly as popular. Billy Graham is extremely popular and well-known, but Billy’s fame came from preaching at revivals – this is what preachers do and what he was trained to do. Billy never sought to create a socio-political juggernaut or use a university setting to promote his preaching – and he tends not to step out of his wheelhouse. He preached. I see more a valid counterpart/comparison to Billy in a guy like Robert Funk.
(* If Dawkins had a history of making lots of outrageous statements in speeches then backing them down to a kernel of truth in writings, then that might be reasonable to believe. We’d have to wonder why he didn’t just learn his lesson and be more careful. If Dawkins had a history of making lots of outrageous statements in speeches and then not backing them down, then that might be reasonable to believe, but it might be more reasonable to believe that he really does agree with all that outrageousness. But I don’t see any of that being true with Dawkins. *)
We will, again, agree to have a very different perception here, and it is understandable. I do believe that Dawkins “has a history” of this sort of thing. He’s compared believing scientists to Nazi-appeasers (the “Neville Chamberlain School of Scientists”). From where I stand, his whole premise that belief in God (of the theistic kind) is a mental virus, a delusion of the mind, etc. is simply shocking and outrageous. It may not be an outrageous notion to someone like yourself. Of course to those who faithfully tune in to the “700 Club” Pat Robertson is just “telling it like it is”.
There are ways to level criticism against believing scientists (if you don’t share their POV) without equating them with Nazi appeasers. There are ways to level criticism against religious folks and their beliefs without categorizing them as irrational lunatics whose brains don’t work properly. Many atheists understand this and seem interested in a rational discourse that doesn’t degrade into name-calling and condescension – and I appreciate that. You seem like one of them. In the same way there are plenty of folks on my side of the aisle who aren’t interested in taking the tone of Pat/Jerry. We don’t need to threaten Pennsylvania with an earthquake from God as an intro to discussing the pros/cons of the Dover case.
Anyhow, I’ll need to bow out of the discussion – you can have the last word and you should since it is your site! I’ve been snowed-in the past couple days and have had an inordinate amount of time to engage in this vivid “blogversation” – but it is back to life and work for me. I tune into your site from time to time, and I appreciate the discussions/information that you have set up here.
It may not be much, but we can both probably agree that comparing Dawkins to Pat/Jerry is at least a more accurate comparison than Dawkins : suicide bomber. Cheers!
Dawkins is an intellectual warrior, fighting with argument against ideas that he thinks are pernicious. He does not throw bombs, he does not invoke deities or consign individuals to hell. His positions are based on observation of real behavior, and his arguments take all forms of religion into account. He bends over backwards to distinguish between the severe cases of religious infection and the mild ones, but insists that the phenomenon is a problem even when mild, due to its unique tendency to spread into more virulent, untreatable forms of non-thought. His mannner of argument is not only fair, but necessary to cut through the haze of evasion and hypersensitivity where religion typically takes cover.
When he describes religion as a virus of the mind to be eradicated, he is talking about waging intellectual war on bad ideas, not literal war on individuals. The fact that so many, even atheists and humanists, are incapable of recognizing that distinction and its relevance is troubling, to say the least.
Re Comment 35 by Bruce Springsteen.
It’s like if somebody hears the name of the “Make Poverty History” campaign and immediately shouts “THOSE MONSTERS MUST BE STOPPED! THEY WANT TO EXTERMINATE ALL POOR PEOPLE!!!”
What are we supposed to say to an attitude like that?