Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


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 2 (424746)
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?

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 2 (424787)
09-28-2007 3:36 PM


Thread copied to the Anti-theistic strawmen? thread in the Faith and Belief forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024