|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Anti-theistic strawmen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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: 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: 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: 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 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
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. are you then willing to defend the idea that atheistic or non-theistic nationalism can't breed the same thing? or that any variety of mobilizing political or social factor couldn't breed the same thing? humans are capable of being polarized and radicalized and those who seek power will utilize this no matter what mobilizing phychology or theology or whatever they choose to use.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
brennakimi writes: atheistic or non-theistic nationalism... What's atheism got to do with nationalism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
nothing. but often, nationalism has a theistic tinge. i was excluding this from my query.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Then certainly, there are all kinds of things in the world, like dogmatic idealism, nationalism etc. which cause strife, and are often described as evil. Dawkins is including religion amongst them.
His point needs to be made, as unlike the others, religion is often described as "spiritual" or "good". Considering its historical record, this is strange.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i'm simply saying that his assertion that without religious faith the level of commitment these individuals demonstrate wouldn't happen is indefensible.
His point needs to be made, as unlike the others, religion is often described as "spiritual" or "good". Considering its historical record, this is strange. see, my problem is that i think logically and see that if the religion is being used by the power hungry who have any number of such tools at their disposal, then the problem is the power-hungry and not the tool they choose to abuse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
I think that what Mod really wants to discuss in the thread is that people have accused Dawkins and other anti-theists of arguing against a strawman version of religion.
see, my problem is that i think logically and see that if the religion is being used by the power hungry who have any number of such tools at their disposal, then the problem is the power-hungry and not the tool they choose to abuse. And the likes of Dawkins see the problem as being inherent in religion itself. Isn't basing views on "faith" automatically an abdication of reason, and disrespect for evidence? Look at your own literalist brethren whom we see on this site, and some of the completely irrational views that they come up with. He's saying to people like you that the promotion of the "faith comes first" attitude will automatically result in people like them. Time and time again you see the attitude "my faith is as good as yours, evolutionist" on this forum. But you know as well as I that the "evolutionists" on this site have a mixture of philosophies, and they only support the ToE on the basis of evidence. (We don't get to heaven for it, do we). So is Dawkins' view of religion a strawman?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
He's saying to people like you that the promotion of the "faith comes first" attitude will automatically result in people like them. who's promoting a "faith comes first" attitude? dawkins isn't against "faith comes first," he's against "faith at all."
But you know as well as I that the "evolutionists" on this site have a mixture of philosophies, and they only support the ToE on the basis of evidence. i'm not convinced that most evolutionists can comprehend it. they just don't like religion.
So is Dawkins' view of religion a strawman? i have no idea. i just don't think it's an accurate view of reality. it's really easy to say "the idea of god is evil." it's a little harder to say "there are a few bad people in the world and they abuse more or less harmless ideas to get other people to do bad things, and also people are in general easily corrupted." blaming the religion instead of the people who participate in it, is an excuse to ignore the evils hiding within yourself and that you are capable of the same things and are probably already guilty of some. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
are you then willing to defend the idea that atheistic or non-theistic nationalism can't breed the same thing? Nationalism would imply some kind of dogmatic faith in one's nation's own greatness regardless of evidence that the assertion is nonsense. One can be atheistic and also hold to a political system that breeds evil. That isn't the topic, though. abe: if a death cult formed from nationalism, I'd be very surprised if an unreasonable unshakeable sense of righteous faith wasn't involved.
i'm simply saying that his assertion that without religious faith the level of commitment these individuals demonstrate wouldn't happen is indefensible. Right - and Dawkins isn't making this argument. If you want to support the position that he is, then go right ahead. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
who's promoting a "faith comes first" attitude? Religions, the Abrahamic ones in particular. They are presented as being true, and you're supposed to have faith in their truths. And not only that, they're not supposed to be the tenth most important thing in your life. They're supposed to be the central foundation, the most important thing.
dawkins isn't against "faith comes first," he's against "faith at all." Religious faith, certainly.
i'm not convinced that most evolutionists can comprehend it. they just don't like religion. Most people who generally accept evolutionary theory could easily comprehend it if they bothered looking at the science, but most non-scientists don't bother too much with science. As for not liking religion, some evolutionists are religious, some of them are indifferent to religion, some are non-religious, and some are anti-religious. In this country, most people are indifferent to religion most of the time
it's really easy to say "the idea of god is evil." I don't know if he's ever used that phrase, but is that really the essence of what Dawkins is saying?
it's a little harder to say "there are a few bad people in the world and they abuse more or less harmless ideas to get other people to do bad things, and also people are in general easily corrupted." Both are equally easy to say. Where you part company from Dawkins is that he thinks religions are anything but harmless ideas. But some religious people have suggested that he is not arguing against religion, but against a strawman version of it. Don't you think that the idea of a God who might order the persecution of idol worshippers might be a harmful idea to people whose religions happen to involve a lot of statues? Millions of people on the Indian subcontinent might have led longer and more peaceful lives if such a jealous God had never been invented, and the Islamic version of it hadn't come their way. If a religion, any religion, claims to be the true religion of the true God, don't you think its followers should be asked to show evidence for such a grand claim? If philosophers claim the truth, they are asked to explain why. If scientists claim truths, they are asked to show evidence. Religion, apparently, is exempt from all this. So Dawkins sees religion itself as harmful, not just as a thing that can be corrupted by bad people. But is his view of religion the real religion, or a strawman, the topic wonders.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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. This is faulty logic though on the part of Dawkins. Would the eradication of faith (something he uses daily, btw) really tip the scales of justice, so to speak? You don't see that as a hopelessly naive notion, especially in light of innumerable instances where the eradication of religion ended in total catastrophe? I think the argument only really points to human beings and what avenue they choose to justify atrocities. Anyone can find some reason within their heart to come to dangerous ideals. Religious zealots have done it, and so have godless zealots. Therefore, I don't see how Dawkins' conclusions apply to reality. "It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, nem.
I think the argument only really points to human beings and what avenue they choose to justify atrocities. Huh. Isn't this what you were trying to argue against in the racism thread? In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Huh. Isn't this what you were trying to argue against in the racism thread? Yes, in some respects. I don't think anyone can sit there and say that either religion or irreligion is the cause of atrocity. Since both camps have their fair share, we need to look to other reasons. Well, what's the common denominator? What threads runs through all of it that ties all of them together? The fact that they're human. There is something within mankind that, at the basest level, is prone to these sort of things. I would call this sin. You, no doubt, would object to the terminology, but there seems to be some basis for it. BTW, thanks for reminding of the racism thread. I forgot about it. "It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BMG Member (Idle past 240 days) Posts: 357 From: Southwestern U.S. Joined: |
I don't think anyone can sit there and say that either religion or irreligion is the cause of atrocity. Since both camps have their fair share, we need to look to other reasons. Would you mind providing supporting evidence for this assertion?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024