Are theism and atheism societally compatable? or Why Dawkins Matters?

[bryant69]

The atheist movement doesn't have leaders in the sense that many Christian Sects do. Frankly it seems like even the phrase Atheist movement might even a misnomer. Each Atheist is free to think for him or her self and to have his or her own attitudes.

The Media and people in general aren't as used to looking at decentralized "movements," particularly in the sphere of religion (Atheism isn't a religion of course, but it is a stance on religion and God and so gets mentally grouped in with religion, which I know, is kind of offensive). So people naturally try to make atheism fit the mold they are used to; they look for the Atheist Billy Graham or Pat Robertson. And two prominent atheists have written books and are very articulate and seem to fit the bill, so they are shoved into that role - which I acknowledge isn't exactly fair.

Particularly since one of the biggest questions facint religion right now is the value of tolerance and respect for various religions. The Atheist/Theist divide is hardly the most hot aspect of this issue (that spot is reserved for Muslim / Christian compatability), but it is probably the biggest one here on this board (since most people seem to believe that claiming Islam doesn't belong here in the United States or that we should keep Islam out is bigotry, there's not much discussion. We largely agree on this one.).

And that's where Dawkin's elevation to high priest of Atheism is problematic (once again, he didn't elevate himself, he was annoited as such by a media to lazy to figure out a better way to talk about Atheism). Because Dawkins seems to believe that Atheism and Theism are not societally compatable. That we need to make a choice between Theism and Science. While some try to limit his comments to being only about the Creationism debate, I don't get the sense, reading him, that he limits himself to that arena. Rather I think he's fighting for a World in which theism is as credible as phrenology. Which is certainly his right. But the implications for Theists are clear as well. No matter how moderate or reasonable we might be, in the long run, he believes the World would be better off without us.

Bryant

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. He believes the world would be better off without any theistic beliefs

not the people who hold them. I think that's a distinction worth making.

[bryant69]

5. It probably is, but it's a pretty fine line

I guess it depends on what part of your identity is made up of your belief, how you would take that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. I think it matters for your argument of 'societal compatibility'

It's the difference between saying people are so misguided, because of one aspect of their beliefs, that society would be better off without them; and just saying that there are certain beliefs that hold society back.

For how much one's belief in a god, or one's religion, make up one's identity, I would say it can be an important, but never 'majority' part of the identity; I think there's more variation between people professing the same religious belief than between those in different beliefs. I have found the occasional person who does seem to define everything they do in terms of their religion to be the most difficult people to understand.

[greyl]

25. That's what I would have pointed out, too.

It's a clear distinction.

[okasha]

34. You mean he hates the religion but loves the religionist?

Dayyuumm, I know I've heard that somewhere before. . ..

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Yes, I did wonder about putting it that way (n/t)

[okasha]

37. At least you recognized there's a certain irony involved.

It seems to have bypassed some others who'd be quick to recognize it if, say, it were a matter of Jerry Falwell "loving" homosexual people while hating homosexuality.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. That, however, would be quite different

Religion is a matter of choice, while homosexuality isn't. And homosexuality doesn't hold back the world, or harm it.

[Dhalgren]

2. Yes. Theism and atheism are societally compatible. The

Epicurean communities from the first and second centuries BC forward, were societies where the belief or non belief in gods was unimportant to the life of the community. Belief in gods was considered to be a personal choice related to one's happiness and was not a matter of concern for the community, as a whole. Epicurus said that whether the gods existed or not was maybe something we could not "know", but belief in them should be something that contributed to a person's happiness. Conversely, if one does not believe in the gods, this non-belief should contribute to happiness, as well.

[cosmik debris]

3. You are perpetuating two myths

One is that Dawkins is a High Priest. (every time you repeat that you perpetuate the myth even if you don't believe it)

The other is that Dawkins wants to rid the world of theists. He only wants theist to get the same EQUAL treatment as any other belief. (as opposed to the special treatment given to religion.)

[bryant69]

4. As for the first

I can't talk about the myth unless I mention it. If I presented it flat you'd have a point, but since I explained it this is just nitpicking for the sake of nit picking.

As for teh second, my read of Dawkins is different than yours evidently. That's not surprising.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

7. You have a reputation for telling people what they believe

So I have to wonder where you get the evidence for this statement:

"he believes the World would be better off without us."

So convince me, show me where he said that and I will believe you.

[bryant69]

10. Well I suspect what will actually happen is that I'll show you

and you will make nasty comments about the state of my mental health. But what the hell. Let's give this a whirl.

This is from the first Salon Interview pages 3 and 4 http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/10/13/dawkins/index.html

"And they could be right, in a political sense. It depends on whether you think the real war is over the teaching of evolution, as they do, or whether, as I do, think the real war is between supernaturalism and naturalism, between science and religion. If you think the war is between supernaturalism and naturalism, then the war over the teaching of evolution is just one skirmish, just one battle, in the war. So what the scientists you've been talking to are asking me to do is to shut my mouth. Because for the sake of what I see as the war, I'm in danger of losing this particular battle. And that's a worthwhile political point for them to make.

Well, I think a lot of these scientists really do accept Stephen Jay Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria. These are hardcore evolutionists, but they say religion is an entirely different realm. So you, with your inflammatory rhetoric, just muddy the waters and make life more difficult for them.

That is exactly what they say. And I believe that actually is the political reason for Steve Gould to put forward the non-overlapping magisteria in the first place. I think it's nonsense. And I'll continue to say that I think it's nonsense. But I can easily see, politically, why he said that and why other scientists follow it. The politics is very straightforward. The science lobby, which is very important in the United States, wants those sensible religious people -- the theologians, the bishops, the clergymen who believe in evolution -- on their side. And the way to get those sensible religious people on your side is to say there is no conflict between science and religion. We all believe in evolution, whether we're religious or not. Therefore, because we need to get the mainstream orthodox religious people on our side, we've got to concede to them their fundamental belief in God, thereby -- in my view -- losing the war in order to win the battle for evolution. If you're prepared to compromise the war for the sake of the battle, then it's a sensible political strategy.

Throughout the ages, one has resorted to that kind of political compromise. And maybe it would be a good thing for me to do as well. But as it happens, I think the war is more important. I actually do care about the existence of a supreme being. And therefore, I don't think I should say something which I believe to be false, which is that the question of whether God exists is a non-scientific question, and science and religion have no contact with each other, so we can all get along cozily and keep out those lunatic creationists."

The larger war is one between Supernaturalism and Naturalism - between science and theism. The only real jump is whether or not atheism is related to science in Dawkins framework. In otherwords if he's fighting against supernaturalism, for naturalism is that the same as fighting against Theism and for Atheism. It seems pretty clear to me that it is, but I'll admit that's not rock solid.

You could also look at his comments in that interview on why even moderate christians teaching their kids faith and believe in a supreme being can have disasterous consequences.

Bryant

[greyl]

11. That's considerably less than "rock solid".

Try again?

[bryant69]

12. No - once was enough. I'm pretty well convinced

I just acknowledge that others may not be.

Bryant

[greyl]

14. Why would anyone be convinced? Why are YOU convinced?

You claimed to be providing evidence of something, and proceeded to not show evidence of it.

[bryant69]

17. The evidence is clear to me

The fact that you deny it by negation doesn't change my opinion.

He talks about creationism as one struggle in a larger war - what is that larger war if it's not science vs. religion, i.e. theism vs. atheism?

[greyl]

19. If it exists outside of your imagination, you should be able to present it.

edit: To remind you, you are trying to support the statement "he believes the World would be better off without us."

[bryant69]

23. I did present it

Your denial doesn't count as counter proof.

I suggest reading the entire article - it makes it clear his opinion on religion and theism. He sees it as a negative, and sees himself in a war against it.

Bryant

[greyl]

24. See ya. nt

[cosmik debris]

13. Atheism is not naturalism

Nor is atheism science. Freely substituting those terms for the purpose of you argument is part of the fallacy.

You have expressed an opinion about his belief, but you haven't proved that he actually believes what you say. Nor have you shown why your opinion about his belief is any more accurate than my expressed opinion about his belief. Once again you are guilty of telling people what they believe for the purpose of insulting them.

Re: your mental health--your post speak for themselves.

[bryant69]

16. Hey I was right

How did I insult him?

If naturalism or science defeats supernaturalism, will theism still be around? Can you have a non-supernatural theism? I geuss deism might fit the bill there - but certainly not a belief in a personal God.

Bryant

[greyl]

18. A certain form of Animism can be considered non-supernatural

and totally compatible with science, but I'm not aware of any others.

[cosmik debris]

22. You stated that his belief is intolerant of religion

"Because Dawkins seems to believe that Atheism and Theism are not societally compatible."

You have accused him of believing in intolerance and you have failed to prove that point. Obviously you were attempting to insult him by creating a belief and attributing it to him. Guilty as charged.

[bryant69]

26. You are trying to wind me up again

I could say "Atheists are Nice" and you'd rip into me.

What's frusterating about you as well is how quickly you attribute motive - You don't seem capable of believing that I read these interviews, came away with an impression and am accurately repeating that impression - I can't just be wrong, I have to be dishonest.

At any rate, let's go through the evidence once more.

1. He argues that faith is evil - "I think there's something very evil about faith, where faith means believing in something in the absence of evidence, and actually taking pride in believing in something in the absence of evidence. And the reason that's dangerous is that it justifies essentially anything."

2. He suggests that even moderate religious people shouldn't teach faith to their children, because of it's potential to fan the flames of fanatacism. "However, the moderate, sensible religious people you've cited make the world safe for the extremists by bringing up children -- sometimes even indoctrinating children -- to believe that faith trumps everything and by influencing society to respect faith.

3. Teaching that there is one God or the Creation is child abuse. "But to teach children that it is a fact that there is one god or that God created the world in six days, that is child abuse.

4. He sees religous belief as a scientific belief - i.e. religion attempts to make claims about how the universe works. "Yes, I think religious belief is a scientific belief, in the sense that it makes claims about the universe which are essentially scientific claims. . . . If you believe in miracles, that is clearly a scientific claim, and scientific methods would be used to evaluate any miracle that somebody claimed evidence for."

5. He sees himself as involved in a war between science and supernaturalism. "It depends on whether you think the real war is over the teaching of evolution, as they do, or whether, as I do, think the real war is between supernaturalism and naturalism, between science and religion."

6. He specifically says that Creationism/Evolution is only one front in a larger war over the existence of a diety. "Throughout the ages, one has resorted to that kind of political compromise. And maybe it would be a good thing for me to do as well. But as it happens, I think the war is more important. I actually do care about the existence of a supreme being."

So let's add this up - He sees himself at war - he specifically uses that imagery and repeatedly. He describes it as a war between science and religion (which he sees as a false alternative to science (see 4). He later says that he can't pretend that science and religion are compatable in the evolution debate because he cares about the existence of a supreme being - this would suggest that the existence of a supreme being is a key if not the core battlefield in this war he is fighting.

So he's fighting a war on the side of science against religion, in which a major issue is the existence of a supreme being.

The question is is the battle front entirely contained within the scientific community, or does it have larger societal implications? Again he seems to see larger implications - his comments on teaching your child religion as child abuse, or moderate religious belief making the world safe for extremists imply that he believes that religion is not just a threat to scientistic discovery, but a threat to the world as a whole. As long as faith exists and motivates people, and since faith can be used to justify anything, theres the potential for problems.

So to sum up, I feel pretty safe in saying that Dawkins does not see Atheism and Religion as societally compatable.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

27. You're substituting for words that don't fit your argument

Atheism is NOT science. Not one single attributed quote in your post uses the word atheism. You are writing that in because you can't make your insult with the words he actually uses.

So, if you are not making this shit up to insult, why are you making this shit up?

[bryant69]

28. Making this shit up?

You are really going for it aren't you?

I guess I thought I got atheism by his statement that he believes that the existence of a Supreme Being matters. All this time he's been identified as an Atheist and I just took it on faith that when he talks abuut fighting a war over the existence of of a supreme being he's in the "Nay" camp. But I can't think of a time he actually identified himself as an atheist. I guess i can't leave out the possibility that in this war between science and religion he's on religion's side.

No wait. He thinks faith is evil. I guess he is in the "Nay" camp after all.

What do we call people who do not believe in the Supreme Being and believe that belief in a Supreme being is a fallacy at best and an outright evil at worst?

It's on the tip of my tongut.

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

29. You do know that there is a spell checker available don't you?

And I would guess that you know that there is more than one word for people who don't believe in a supreme being. And I would guess that you also know that atheism is not synonymous with science or naturalism. So why do you go on with the same arguments?

[bryant69]

31. Good point

There's no reason to go on arguing with you. We've both made our points, and I'm content to leave it the readers to guage the truth.

I apologize for my bad spelling and typos.

Bryant

[bloom]

6. I don't think that it's a positive thing

for people to insist that there is a divide between atheism and religion.

As I've pointed out - there are atheist religious people.

The Unitarian Universalist church, for instance, has people who believe just about whatever they want. Atheist, deist, or whatever. I think they have are a better model than a lot of things. And show that Atheism and Theism ARE societally compatible.

[unpossibles]

9. don't forget non-theistic religions like Buddhism

and then there are many agnostics - people who generally do not believe in a specific deity, but who will not say there is 100% chance there is no God because they don't know for sure.

I also think that the problem is not between atheism and theism, but between atheism and monotheism. Pantheists don't seem to be so into the whole "I must save/convert you" thing, which is what tends to annoy most atheists/agnostics I know.

[bloom]

15. Yes - of course

that is a part of it also. I think a lot of people who abandon patriarchal religions for whatever reason look to other possibilities like Buddhism/Taoism/whatever.

This definition from Starhawk could be describing UUs, "‘Polytheism’ means the belief in many different names and approaches to the sacred. While most of us believe in a deep, spiritual unity at the heart of existence, we also believe in the value of many different names, faces, symbols, and paths to that heart. No one has a monopoly on truth, in our teachings, and every religion and spiritual tradition holds a perspective that has value and is uniquely suited to some individuals’ needs..."


I never really thought of it in terms of polytheism - but that seems more like it than monotheism - which can be very stubborn about being the only way to the "truth".

[unpossibles]

20. exactly my problem with monotheism

I distrust anyone who says they have the only answer. then put a billion people who have different opinions of what the only answer is together.... and you get holy wars.

[greyl]

21. Who is saying that, exactly?

Regarding Dawkins, I think his main focus is the incompatibility of science and supernaturalism.
(which of course, disqualifies Buddhism from being compatible with science)

[beam me up scottie]

38. Don't ruin it for her.

There are so few opportunities to bash non-religious atheists, after all. :evilgrin:

[genie_weenie]

8. The world would be better off without religion.

"No matter how moderate or reasonable we might be, in the long run, he believes the World would be better off without us."

Truly, this is an difficult statement to accept. Group (Tribes, Nations, City-States) leaders have for thousands of years persecuted those who don't believe or who have expressed those non-beliefs. This includes the taking of their lives and property.

Atheists are the leaset trusted people in America. http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686

No atheist will ever be voted into high political office. Bush 43 talks to his personal god and gets advice on how to act. Bush 41 declares atheists aren't citizens.

It's interesting that when the "biggest questions" facing religions are listed, the one never listed is, Is this belief system true? That is taken as axiomatic. But Dawkins is asking is the teaching (indoctrination) of children, ideas which he considers false acceptable?

[Salviati]

32. I'd argue that the world would be just the same without religion.

The problem isn't with religion, it's with people. Without religion as an excuse, they'd just find another reason to be horrible to each other.

[kiahzero]

33. Case in point: nationalism.

Theism is not a causal factor of the world's problems.

[rug]

36. Of course they are. That's what the First Amendment is for.

[beam me up scottie]

39. And another flame bait thread. Going for the record, dude?

BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA !

[bryant69]

41. Any post I make is going to be flame bait to you

So I can't really use you as a reliable guide.

Bryant