http://www.beliefnet.com/story/203/story_20334_1.htmlHere’s a great article from Richard Dawkins on hostility towards religion.Question: Is religion tolerable? Is religion something that must be cured in believers, or must we give them the same intellectual respect we demand?
Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion.
Copyright 2012. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of American Atheists.
Hmmmm
You know, just browsing through the posts since my last comment has me thinking that a lot of people are missing the main point.
We are not debating tolerance/respect/equality/whatever for people – Of course we should be generally respectful of other people. Of course there should be equal opportunity for people to express themselves (so long as they’re not harming anyone.)
But when it comes to competition between ideas, equality should go straight out the window. The world of ideas should be a meritocracy, not a democracy where the most popular choice wins or some strange post-modern fantasy world where all ideas are automatically granted equal merit.
The problem is that our society does allow religious opinions to enjoy post-modern status (especially if those beliefs are monotheistic), while every other opinion is subjected to meritocratic competition. When it comes to religion, for some reason it is okay to believe a particular set of claims simply because it gives one “hope” or because it inspires one to be “charitable,” not because one’s belief enjoys a greater percentage of the evidence in its favor. All you have to say is “this is part of my religion” and all debate pretty much stops.
Just imagine what life would be like if we granted the same post-modern status to all claims. You would have your Euclidian geometry and I would have my Euclidian geometry. You would have your way of spelling “necessary” and I would have my way of spelling “nessecary“. You would have your definition of a millimeter and I would have my definition of a millimeter. There would be no standard truths and as a result nothing would ever get done. And this is exactly what is happening when it comes to religion. We tip toe around the greatest issues of our time for fear of offending the “cherished beliefs” of others rather than debating the validity of those beliefs themselves, and the result, quite frankly, is the perpetuation of ignorance, bigotry, and even war.
It is time to strip away our taboos against direct confrontation of religious/supernatual claims. It is time to demand explanations. It is time to demand evidence.
Mellow? Moi?
Well, -there’s- a first…
And KAREN, You’ve GOT MORE MAIL.
RainbowRaptor,
very well roared!!!
Indeed, that IS one of the fundemental (sorry!) problems of debate these days.
Religious people, of whatever stripe or strenght of worship, seem to think they are entitled to some sort of “safe haven” or “extra protection” not granted to any other ideas.
Others must respect their point of view and never, ever apply the same scrutiny to them that one would apply to any-and-everything else.
It’s as if they on some level realize that their position is untenable and so try to pre-empt any attempt to question it.
It is a tactic both dishonest and cowardly.
Monkey & Dinosaur,
I agree… my original post recommended “ASSERTIVE TOLERANCE” which means that while you can tolerate the competetion of ideas it is imperative to be assertive in your own, not resereved out of fear of confrontation and to demand reason as we do in all other topic areas of our intellectual life.
That said, any “softness” in my tone is due to my aversion to the sarcastic… while it may be often times deserved in a debate I think it best for the cause of REASON to restrain from using it… this is a pragmatic position on my part and we each have our way of sharing ideas. I am not suggesting any in this post are guilty of this (except me on occassion) none the less for me that is what the discussion was about. Sorry if this was off point for most.
We have all surely heard…
“Everyone has a right to their own opinion”
interested in anybodies gut responseto this statement.
thaddeus.
Uh, okay…
.
Not sure what you’re referring to, exactly, as I haven’t read this whole thread. My latest comments only related to the one you directed at me. And it seems like we agree, to some extent. Especially since I haven’t used sarcasm yet…
which, I think, is one reason Karen called my response restrained.
No, you are right, we agree completely as far as I can tell and I sensed no sarcasm at all. In what “extent” do you sense we may differ?
monkey,
Just checked out your blog… and yor were right we agree only on some things… and I can see why Karen complimented you on your restraint here
…to answer my own question I think per your personal blog we differ in that I still beleive in the good of Democracy and am in no hurry to die.
rainbow,
Very nice MySpace site and I really enjoyed your “Teapot Vid” from Dawkins… I have yet seeen the whole series through from beginning to end but all the parts I have seen have been great! and speak to what we have been hacking about here.
r4d
Beautifully worded post about missing the point.
I agree. Also, you are brilliant. I told you you were missed.
thad
So sorry you don’t like sarcasm. It’s one of my favorite contact sports.
Did you catch KA’s post about “informed ” opinions? It was late yesterday, I believe, this thread.
Mellow monkey
More mail winging it’s way to ya.
It’s fabulous to have you back. I hope it’s to stay for a while.
HMDK
Karen,
No, i did not see the post you mentioned… I will look for it in a sec.
As for sarcasm… I personally just love it! It is to me what a warm little kitty is to others. Trouble is I can be a little to good at it and the contact sport is often not appreciated by most… So bring it on in “like” company… I was just saying I try to restrain when my motivation is prove a point and not entertain.
My apologies if I got the conversation off track. At times I get carried away with questions or thoughts.
I was visiting KA’s blog (enjoyed it)and one of the comments to his blogstated that Dawkin’s characterization of a parent teaching a child religion was akin to “Child abuse” was too extreme. any thoughts?
thaddeus.
“…to answer my own question I think per your personal blog we differ in that I still beleive in the good of Democracy and am in no hurry to die.”
Heeh… yeah.
I ain’t in too much of a hurry to slip this mortal coil, yet, either.
And, despite my latest blog-entry,
I haven’t given up on democracy, either.
Rather, it has, as I see it,
conceded defeat.
It (democracy) has certainly shown the weakness of its soft underbelly.
Look at the United States.
A democratic republic on the fast-track to facism,
and maybe even theocracy.
A media, always blamed for “liberal bias” has turned into loyal conservative apologists.
I find solace in the fact that
the word “liberal”,
means “right-wing” here in Denmark.
I can appreciate how one might assume those conclusions depending on what news they hear and read, and to a degree it is true in part, but only in part. The pendulm swings back and forth here in the US just like everywhere in the world and throughout history… do not be too concerned, there are more rationalist here than you might imagine. I am am optimist that if I can change then others can too.
thaddeus said,
“do not be too concerned, there are more rationalist here than you might imagine”
Yeah, well, we haven’t heard much from the so-called moderates, have we?
By the way,
can anyone give a reasonable
explanation as to why a gay couple
shouldn’t be able to adopt
(Above and beyond the rules levied at heterosexual couples/single parents)?
monkey,
They have spoken, in at least a small way… the house and senate were lost by Bush this election and TIME, NEWSWEEK, WIRED and many other national media outlets have focused on the rise of atheistic and reasoned thought in opposition to theist… if yo listen you will hear them and I for one will do all I can to help in that as I trust all reasoned folks would…
as to why a gay couple should not be allowed to adopt… this is an issue very close to me becasue as I mentioned earlier in this blog my sister -in -law and her partner chose to do this very thing… at the time I was still not fully comfortabel with my search and conclusions on the REAL and the RATIONAL and like so many who are trying to do the best with what they have at the time my wife and I did not support this. We were WRONG and I have since apologized. I can not think of a good REASONABLE reason a gay couple would be unworhty simply because they are gay.
I was squarley wrong and I share it only to say that sometimes those we imagine are immovable (and I am one who welcomes and enjoys debate)are still susceptible to REASON. Granted I was searching and was not “fat and satisfied” with my “faith” but none the less there are many like me.
I can’t think of one reason and I have thought about it alot
now I could go on for page why I think some couples should not be parents… but it would have nothing to do with their sexuality
thaddeus,
I have a version of ‘Root Of All Evil’ I can burn for you if you send me your address. Just send me a message on myspace since my regular email is so spammed out anymore that I might miss someone new.
As far as the child abuse analogy that Dawkins uses:
I was a little uncomfortable as well when I first heard it, even though there were many parts of my own childhood indoctrination that could be describe as abusive. Still, ‘abuse’ seemed like too harsh a word for me.
But then I got to ask the man himself about it. Well, I didn’t ask about abuse per se, but his answer to my question touched on it. I had been following his book tour journal and was particularly interested in his post about the Lynchburg Virginia stop – Lynchburg is about 60 miles east of my hometown, Roanoke. Anyway, something about that post really grabbed my attention. I’ll just quote:
So here is “Darwin’s Rottweiler” admitting that he didn’t understand the anger one would feel after de-converting, and it made me wonder about Dawkins’ own lack of personal experience with religious belief, or at least with fundamentalist belief.
So when he came to Portland, I gathered up the courage to ask him if he had ever consider the emotion I usually feel when thinking about my religious family members, and that is a profound sadness. Sadness that no matter how else I succeed in life, I will always be a failure in their eyes because I do not share their beliefs. Sadness at the fact that they believe I am failing not only personally but as a father and a husband for not raising my family in the church. Sadness at the fact that they have to live with this belief that I am going to hell. I understand that their beliefs feel very real to them and, though they may enjoy deep ‘spiritual’ gratification through their beliefs, those very same beliefs are set to tear us apart.
Dawkins’ reply was to remind everybody in the audience that almost all child abusers were abused themselves, and that the normal method for breaking such cycles of abuse was to first be forgiving and empathetic towards your abuser and to try to involve them in the healing process. It was at this point that I realized that the ‘child abuse’ statement is not so much an accusation as a metaphor, as we usually equate child abuse with physical abuse. But religion can often be psychologically abusive, especially in fundamentalist and cult circles. Being told you will go to hell if you do not believe certain things is abusive. Being filled with the grotesque images of Biblical warfare and God’s wrath and being told it’s all real is abusive. Being told that certain friends of yours are not Christian enough and that you need to start witnessing to them is abusive. It’s hard to come out and admit to this, but fundamentalist religion is abusive, and forcing your children to practice these beliefs is a form of abuse. We’re only uncomfortable saying this openly because of the very same societal taboos I mentioned in my last post.
r4d,
you are very kind to offer me a copy and I will most certianly and enthusiastically take you up on it! Look for my email.
Thank you immensley for your post! I can so relate to what you said… I have been the “leader” in my family of five boys and one girl… the son often looked to and respected for his study and ability to defend the FAITH I was raised in… my family has always been skeptics in the general sense and have alwasy taken the conventional wisdom of society to task in all areas, yet strangley in the area of religion it was as if it was a “free from question zone”…
I am only now making my way into the open witin my community. At the Lions meeting the one that they typically asked to pray will now have to awkwardly say “i’d rather not” sure it’s funny in a way but in other ways I can appreciate the frustration some feel. What has happened to this man of faith who lead bible studies and wrote devotionals??? It is dificult for me and I trust for them as well. Yet I am very happy and finally at peace.
As to anger… many are and probably for good reason… maybe I should be but I guess I do not think the beliefs were forced on me maliciously, they simply must not have been as driven for answers as I was. Who knows??? They have been surprisingly open to my ideas and their relation to me has not changed. So my experience may be very moderate compared to others. Although my most religious brother has yet to have the TALK with me and I know that he will be certian I am heading to HELL and represent a supreme vitory for SATAN. I think he will be very upset/saddened. Maybe I should not assume the worst but…
Anyway in considering the past, I do have a sense of loss. Loss of those I may have opffended without reason. Loss from living in guilt for even considering blasphemy. Mostly though at this early stage for me I have an urge to study more, share more, and hope that those who have not come from my background will be strong and firm in dealing with believers, but like your post underlined… they may need to take special care to appreciate that they can not know what it is like to have lived that life and what it takes to come out from it. We as a group are not “stupid” we are not late “bloomers” we are not automatically deserving of ridicule… some maybe deserving once you have taken the time to peel back a couple layers, but the automatic response of “dude, whats your problem, how could you ever have… is neither helpful, sensative, or productive.
Again, I am not sugesting anyone here has been this way but share this onlybecause I feel compulsed to.
r4d,
Again, thanks for your post and I do better understand what Dawkins perspective or metaphor was meant to portray…
For me I think that while I applaud so much of what he says this is one phrase of his I will not quote lest it be misunderstood. There must be another way to communicate it without coming across as the “thought ploice” inserting yourself into someones family room
r4d
Thanks for sharing the quote from Dawkins and your own personal experience. I know from what you’ve said before that there has been this ongoing attitude about you among your family. For the little it’s worth, I think it’s of some benefit that you can at least talk about it some with them.
And I don’t know you personally, but from your website and the things you’ve talked about here, I think you’re a pretty terrific dad, and husband and son. I know that doesn’t count like family, but there it is anyway.
Putting it into the context you did, I see fundamental religious upbringing as more abusive than when I first responded to the Rottweiler thread. I knew it damaged me psychologically, but I always thought that was due to extenuating circumstances.
I have tried to forgive my parents for indoctrinating me, rationalizing that they too were indoctrinated, as Dawkins alludes to. Sometimes I almost get there. Then I wonder, if I could step back and question, why couldn’t they have? They weren’t idiots. And a good amount of the time, they were the ones my questions were directed to. But instead of engaging me, they shut me up, shut me out, and condemned me.
They’re both gone mow, so I have to sort this out in my head and my heart.
But what will you do? Do Dawkins’ words make you want to reapproach your family about this? The abuser seldom if ever wants to admit his role, and in the case of the religious zealot indoctrinating a child, I would think it extremely rare that they could ever evenn recognize that this is a matter of abuse.
If this is too personal, please just take this all as rhetorical questions. You just gave me a lot of food for thought.
I tend to think the child abuse metaphor goes to far. I am a big fan of Dawkins but I don’t think that a religious upbringing can be compared to physical or sexual abuse. It just seems a whole different level to me.
I was not raised religious though so I may not have the same perspective on this as ex-believers.
thaddeus.
Considering the comments you’ve made,
you seem like a gem. A genuine rarity.
But a lot of disconcerting facts remain.
That more americans believe in creation than evolution,
that atheists, in the U.S., are seen as little better than childmolesters,
that something like a ban on stem-cell research could even be -considered-…
It all goes to show, not only the
ignorance, but the -deliberate ignorance- of a nation already in dire ethical trouble.
A nation whose government,
both democratic and republican,
has approved torture and secret millitary tribunals…
All the while beating its chest like an immature King Kong and declaring,
“Worship Me or Whorship Terror”.
The bargain we’re being asked to make, is, in and of itself, terrifying.
And uselesss.
And laughable…
least it would be,
if I was the kind of person
to laugh at funerals.
Although harmful we can’t just force people to not believe in something. We can try and help them out of it with a gentle hand and strong reasoning.
Don’t get me wrong though, I DESPISE religion and I want it to be gone forever. Yet to make my dream come true would be good but deeply wrong since freedom would be forgotten.
karen,
I know you were asking r4d, but from my perspective I like Monika find abuse over the top for these reasons.
1) We have to be honest with the accepted use of this word in our society and then sensabile in our application of it… this word ABUSE typically means physical or mental abuse for which the abuser is aware on some level that it is not acceptable and is harmful
2) Passing on ones honest beliefs to a child who questions I do not think rises to that level… “daddy were did birds come from” … if Dad believes (granted incorrectly) that they come from a Christian God then I thik we go to far to set such a father up as an abuser and the child as a victim
Finally there are always exceptions to the rule and there are those who not only share there beliefs and raise their children in their beliefs but they go to far and create an ever present enviroment of fear and terror. Obviously this is different but I think one would have a hard time suggesting that the typical family who calls themselves “Christians” in America is of this extreme kind.
monkey,
I am not saying you have no grounds for concern… I am just suggesting as a citizen of the county you are talking about, being one that rubs elbows with the folks you are concerned about that the polls you are concerned with can not answer the questions you ask clearly enough
Yes many will respond they are believers just as many would have responded that segreagation was a good thing many years ago… truth be known, many that say they are, are actually not… they have only to be exposed to reason and a functional alternative. Call me an optimist but reason will have its day… Europe has had its history of heightened religion as well.
As to the broad stokes of opinion you have about all of our elected officials and our citizens remember the results of a voting system only represent a majority and when that majority is near 50/50 it take only a few to turn things around. Don’t put on the black funeral attire yet
r4d,
I think the vieos clip you spoke of in Lynchburg was recently posted on Dawkins site… where the lady ask about the anger. The whole video is very good.
Thanks again!
http://richarddawkins.net/home
“As to the broad stokes of opinion you have about all of our elected officials and our citizens remember the results of a voting system only represent a majority and when that majority is near 50/50 it take only a few to turn things around. Don’t put on the black funeral attire yet
”
50/50? I say only only 5% tops of Americans can reason enough to doubt religion.