Dawkins - Nature of Belief

"Is" and "Ought" are not synonyms, is why.

quote:

---

I am curious to know why he is [ought] so passionately against religiosity when religious affinities, if we all were to agree they derive from some natural predilection, are as natural as any biological function.

---

I'm not following you. Can you expound?

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

"Is.""Ought."They're not the same thing. Clear?No? Wikipedia:

quote:

---

In meta-ethics, the is-ought problem was raised by David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian, 1711-1776), who noted that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. But there seems to be a big difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive statements (about what ought to be).

---

Is—ought problem - WikipediaIn other words - to say that something is is not to say that that's the way it ought to be.In other words, when you ask this:

quote:

---

I am curious to know why he is so passionately against religiosity when religious affinities, if we all were to agree they derive from some natural predilection, are as natural as any biological function.

---

you're committing the naturalistic fallacy - the implication that because religious belief exists, it's a good thing, and we should keep it around.Dawkins is against religiosity for the same reason he's against liver flukes and athlete's foot - even though they may all be natural, that's not to say that they're desirable."Is" is not "ought." Is it clear, yet?

double postEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

quote:

---

I am curious to know why he is so passionately against religiosity when religious affinities, if we all were to agree they derive from some natural predilection, are as natural as any biological function.

---

I didn't say whether or not it was a good thing-- just that it exists, presumably, naturally. Cancer is natural. I wouldn't call it a good thing. So I'm asking how or why that is from a naturalistic approach. That does not answer my question. I'm not so much curious as to why he personally doesn't like it as I am for why it exists in abundance in the first place. If it exists in abundance, with no sign of relenting, nature obviously has selected for it. Why though? And how?

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Well, then, so what? Sure, religion is a natural thing. Why would that have anything to do with Dawkins' view that religion is harmful? ...wha? How or why what is? Why cancer is bad?I don't understand what you're trying to say. Human parasites and disease are also clearly in abundance, but they're not positive for humanity. I think your mistake here is the idea that everything nature selects for, it does on behalf of humanity's best interest.That's not the case. Religion exists, it's prevalence may have no effect on human evolution. It may be a perversion of an advantageous mental trait - like, perhaps, children accepting without question information from their parents, or arriving at conclusions based on limited evidence, or seeing obscure connections between events. (This is Dawkins' view, as I recall.)Or it might be an advantageous trait, as you suggest. I don't think we know. Nonetheless it's plain to see that religion is a net negative in today's society, regardless of whether or not being religious was a survival benefit for cavemen.I don't think there's "no sign of relenting." Books like Dawkins' were unheard of, not ten years ago. I really do think we're entering an age where the invulnerability of religion to criticism will be revoked.

quote:

---

If it exists in abundance, with no sign of relenting, nature obviously has selected for it. Why though? And how?

---

From a natural point of view, holistically, the desires of humanity is immaterial. And perhaps if Dawkins fought parasites as ardently as he does religion, I'd say there would be room for the parallel. Thank you for the reply. Obviously, as you say, its too early to tell definitively. I don't see how religion itself could be viewed in a negative way anymore than I could anything else. I think its what people do to religion that makes it bad. But he's been writing books on the subject for over 20 years. And lets not forget that Hume, Twain and Nietzsche were popularizing such notions long before then. Oh, I have no doubt of that either. Indeed, its already begun.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Dawkins view (and my own) would be that religion encourages absolute yet irrational conclusions which are effectively unarguable with if 'faith' is taken as having any relevance at all.

Oh, for God's sake. Dawkins has written books on a wide variety of subjects.But the second he tackles religion, people like you act like he's been on a single-minded crusade his entire life. Could you be a little less oversensitive, please? Well, look. It's not like religion is a thing that would exist even if humans weren't around. It's not a material or a resource we're using, like oil or electricity.It's a human activity. There's nothing to religion except for what humans are doing with it. Claims that "religion is good but people make it bad" are pretty specious, as far as I can tell. Even if that's true - if humans can't use it responsibly - then better we should not have it around to misuse. I think maybe you have no idea what you're talking about, here. He's written one book about religious belief. His other books are about biology. It's just plain ignorant to say he's been writing books like The God Delusion for 20 years; that's not at all what his other books are like.

I agree with Crash on this one. It's not what people are doing "to" religion but "with" it. Granted, religion has given rise and inspiration to a great many things, mostly in the category of the arts, such as paintings, novels, poems, sculptures, etc.But religion far too often goads the very worst out of us, and seeks to justify acts and behaviors that when not viewed through a "lense of faith", are simply unjustifiable.

Gosh, one moment I'm insensitive and the next I'm oversensitive. It reminds of the times when I'm called an anti-semite and a zionist all in the same conversation. Neither would science, mathematics, or language either. Go figure. What I said was you can't place the blame on religion itself. People are accountable for their actions, believe it or not. This is even more telling when people misrepresent the religion that specifically tells them not to do the very thing they're doing. Better get rid of cars too while we're at it.

quote:

---

But he's been writing books on the subject for over 20 years.

---

I think perhaps its you that has no clue what you're talking about. Maybe you just jumped on the Dawkins bandwagon a few months ago, but I can assure you that The God Delusion his first piece going over this theme.Adapted by Wikipedia:

2/3 of the remainder are geared towards debunking creationism.Of his essays:

Of his documentaries:

You couldn't possibly have been serious, Crash. Everyone knows all too well that his two favorite subjects in the whole wide world is atheism and evolution. He's a veritable modern day Huxley, if only slightly more or less rabid.Please don't act as though he is innocuous about his aspirations, or that he is falsely being branded as the crusader that he is.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Right. Insensitive to others, oversensitive about yourself. It's called "narcissism." And I'm saying - you can't say "religion is ok; it's just what people do with it" because all religion is is what people are doing with it.I understood you the first time, NJ. You're just wrong. So that's one of three. The Blind Watchmaker is about bioinformatics. A Devil's Chaplain is about philosophy in biology. Neither one is really about religion. These are the essays he based The God Delusion on. We were talking about books, remember? "Viruses of the Mind" is about his meme idea; essays from 1998 hardly substantiate a "20 year" pattern of commenting on religion. Both of these works came out around or after TGD. Dawkins isn't even in "The God Who Wasn't There." Look, if you think I'm wrong, prove it. Two documentaries that both came out after or around The God Delusion - one of which Dawkins doesn't even appear in - hardly substantiate your claim of a lifelong obsession with overturning religion.I have to echo what Percy often wonders - when are you going to say something that's actually true?

Clearly I'm narcissistic. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a date with my mirror. You can't say that religion, a concept, can be faulted without the people who either formed it or misrepresents it. The evidence of such is juxtaposing Mother Theresa next to the Ku Klux Klan. Do tell. No Crash, that's three for three. Crash, you need not grasp at straws. Just say that you were wrong and we'll be on our merry way. I'm actually embarrassed for you. How's that for insensitive? Immaterial. I already did. When you finally recognize what Truth® is, friend.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Mother Theresa - 1 person.
KKK - estimated several thousand.Your making my point for me, NJ. You really need to be looking these materials up, NJ. Blind Watchmaker is about evolution and biological modelling, not religious belief.You gave three books. Only the most recent was about opposing religious belief.It's like you're not even trying. You're just typing in random titles and pretending like you've proven something. You should save that for yourself. I'm not the one who used a documentary Dawkins isn't even in as supposed evidence of his life-long commitment to opposing religion. In what way? Have you just forgotten what it was you set out to prove? Or is it just that you're not smart enough to understand how statements are supported by evidence?The mistakes you make are so fundamental it's amazing. How can someone be as old as you and not know how to think?

There are many people like Mother Theresa. The fact that someone like herself can be so totally opposite of the KKK, and both call themselves Christian, means that someone has a great misunderstanding of the religion. You can't fault the religion any more than you could fault a gun for being homicidal. The Blind Watchmaker is a refutation against design, which according to you, is just some sly way to further religious dogma. I gave three books and several documentaries and essays. Which is more than enough evidence to support this man's obsession with religion. Everyone in here knows about Dawkin's fanatical approach. We're all aware of it, including all the staunch atheists on the board. Why are you the only one pretending like it doesn't exist? Yes. And I have done it, and you know it. Its because I broke my thinking cap. I'm inept without it. My bad.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt