When I seek advice I look to someone who may be qualified to answer any question which I may have. When I don’t know something I look to a person (dead or alive) who is qualified to answer the question. If the person answering my question is condescending, arrogant, pompous and self-absorbed I am less likely to heed the advice given. If I want advice on bread-making I would seek out a baker and not a butcher. If I want advice on how to teach a monkey how to fling shit I would not look to Napolean. I would seek out Richard Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins, I am sure, is a brilliant zoologist and evolutionary scientist. He is not a theologian or philosopher. He is an extrodinary writer and basturd. In The God Delusion Dawkins seeks to convert the masses.
If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.
Dawkins is, afterall, an atheistic missionary. Like missionaries preying on heathen savages in bongobongoland, Dawkins seeks to heal the “mind virus” that is religion (p176). And Dawkins is far too kind to us theists. He will not “go out of [his] way to offend” because offending comes naturally for him (p.27)
The are several areas where Dawkins fails in his attempt to de-theos-ify the world. It could be his straw-man constructs. It could be his cherry picking of ideas and evidence. It could be his reduction to ridicule. It could be his arrogance. It could be his incomplete refutation. It could be his incredibly simplistic approach to religion and philosophy which are a direct result of his inability to comprehend that there are reasons why people believe in God outside of mere hearsay. It could be his bait-and-switch approach to dealing with arguments. It could be his hypothetical examples. It could be his lack of real examples (outside of his own personal anecdotes). It could be the anecdotal method to his own delusion. It could be many things but mostly it is all of them.
Dawkins delusion is not the same as that which he seeks to remove (the one of theism). His delusion is that he is god. Dawkins appears to believe that he is the saviour to our god-full world. The idea of god is one which he cannot fathom and, as such, is one which must be removed. It seems odd that Dawkins, an evolutionist, does not attempt to show ways in which evolution could or should remove the “waste” that is religion.
Dawkins discusses “anting” (a seemingly useless practise of some birds) and how there does not appear to be an evolutionary explanation. But the mere lack of evidence does not preclude that there is not actual reason for this to be less than purposeful. However, religion is a waste and the “advantages” of religion are quickly mentioned as a heading then the discussion changes to how aweful it is. Quite odd.
At any rate, Dawkins does not care what people think so long as they do not think of god. Unless, that is, that god is Dawkins. We are supposed to think critically of everything. But because he provides a long diatribe on the evils and stupidity of religion it is best not to even consider that he could be wrong.
When I was in junior high we had a section in my Language Arts class on “debating.” The topic that we were given did not mean anything to me and I knew almost nothing about it. I did not feel compelled to research the topic thoroughly but that did not keep me from writing a long speech on the topic. I do not remember what the topic was but I remember that I went second. When it was my turn to speak I blasted through my many points even though I knew they were ridiculous (my partner did not even know what I was going to say). After the speeches and the rebuttals the adjudicator came up and pronounced his verdict. It was declared a tie. Not because the arguments were equal. They were not. My arguments were clearly less well defined and were less impressive. The other team was clear, precise and clearly had a greater understanding of the topic. The adjudicator stated that “If you can’t win with insight, bowl them over with your bull shitting.”
Dawkins cannot win this argument with insight. He has not devoted enough time to both sides of the argument. Hatred for an idea does not constitute insight or ingenuity. But, judging by the length of the book and the many topics that are provided only curosry attention, he does bowl people over with bull shit.
Godless Dawkins is God. At least in his own mind. (Yet he cannot tell us how the mind or consciousness evolved or when or how it became a function to ensure the continuation of a species.)
God bless.
12 Comments
very interesting take on this ken. i haven’t actually considered delusion from this standpoint.
as an aside, call me or email me about a new project i’m working on please. i may need your help and insight :D
what standpoint did you take delusion? that it can only happen to other people?
anyone who thinks they have the answer to life is deluded. anyone who demands that others agree with them is an idiot.
no one can hold the whole truth in the palm of their hand. truth is something to be shared, something to discuss, something which provides community. truth is sacred. there is no better word to describe it.
and Dawkins is doing something good and something aweful in his book. he is trying to discern truth and create some discussion. at the same time he is trying to center the discussion on himself.
religion does the same thing. although innocent at first, religion has a tendency to make demands. initially relgion is about truth. just as science was. then it started making demands on people and it turned into something that is less than truth but more than fiction.
dawkins is the same thing.
i entirely agree with this.
the interesting thing dawkins is doing is taking irrational beliefs and hopes that are entirely unproductive and emphasizing just how impractical it is to justify beliefs in such unfounded ways.
however, he is also giving us almost nothing to fill those ‘un-foundations’. to me, i don’t know where else to look but to the history of philosophy and the justification of reason.
for the past year or so i’ve been reading an amalgamation of hegel (phenomenoloy, right), wittgenstein (investigations), R.G. Collingwood (history of ideas), robert brandom (articulating reasons, making it explicit), and now i’m getting into T.H. Green (prolegomena to ethics). i think what i’m finding is a really interesting tradition of linguistic philosophy that is anti-representational, all the while maintaining a KIND of theory of truth, or how we ‘do’ truth. more later!
/a
ps. could you email me about the project we spoke about on the phone last week? i need to ask a few questions again. thanks!
I would look not to science and rationality and reason. To order the world by dividing the world into schools of thought, camps, genders, species, classes, sub-classes, truth, fiction, country, alt-country and so on, is to waste time not actually enjoying other such ideas such as imagination. Science attempts to use imagination to come up with ideas. The problem is that science limits its use of imagination to what science can do. Anything unprovable is unworthy. Only that which can be empirically tested is valuable.
The imagination. The arts. The entertainment. If Dawkins in correct and we have evolved without the aid or existence of God then there is only one purpose to life and that is our own enjoyment. Why bother trying to replicate our genes? They will do that for us. Our job is to enjoy life and looking to reason it out is not worth the time because, face it, there is no reason. We cannot know anything for certain because it is our genes trying to make us do whatever they can to ensure their replication.
I agree with Elijah above –our pleasures become the main things in our life. PLUS I am an ex-atheist and I will be honest with you: you know how atheists always say you can be moral without belife in God? Well what they dont tell you its purely an existential choice. In other words when I was an atheist I FELT like choosing to be moral but I know there was no REAL reason other than being caught by the police that I could not do ‘evil’ things. Hell I eventually learned to do all kinds of things that were wrong. And a friend of mine (who is an atheist still) moved to Africa and found he could get away with even more there. He stopped short of murder but only because he didnt know where he would bury the body. He did this because he was having sex with the mans wife (she wanted her husband dead). She was a rich woman so he gained wealth, sex and drugs (very easy to get there if you have the connections) all in one swoop thanks to his atheism. He mocks me now (Im a theist now) via email. Atheism pays he said to me. Yes it ‘pays’ but there is no real morality behind it. Lets be honest: Dawkins and Hutchinson if they could there is NOTHING that stops them from doing whatever they please except the fear of being caught. Atheists are full of shit.
Its just another excuse to treat people like crap. Everybody likes to talk about how people used religion to do evil but God forbid you point out how many more people have been killed by atheists (stalin killed multi millions more than the inquisition ever did). And mao –he did it gleefully. The first thing I did when I left Atheism is throw up remembering all the stuff i did as an atheist. Its all lies by stupid people who want to do their own thing.
P.S. the worst thing about being an atheist as long as I was was this: once you did all the stuff you always wanted to, that those ‘crazy religious’ people tell you is wrong. Once you do all that shit for a long time, you get up and say ‘what do I do for an encore?’ It actually gets boring! How many whores do you sleep with? How many things do you buy? How much money makes you happy? The more I did what I wanted the more it got ‘same old same old.’ You ever seen that old Twilight Zone where the guy goes to hell and hell is being able to do whatever you want all the time? In the end the guy was screaming mad–he couldn’t take it! sex money drugs sex money drugs over and over and over. so fucking true and sad! I should know.
Now that Im a theist I want to help others and damn it it feels good to know there is a God who made these others so that helping them is worth it, knowing they are not just ‘things’ or ‘animals’ worth nothing. They are valuable souls because God made them not some chance collision of particles millions of years ago. It was God behind that collision. He is an artist, he builds because he loves. Evil happens because WE have free will.
Theist
Live man walking
PPS my friend in africa is no lowbred thug. He came from a well to do family in the UK and has a masters in economics with an BA in general science. He (like me) had a good family. My point is your breeding doesnt matter! Atheism strips you of your fake ‘civilty’ and lets you run around like Pan in the forest nude. Thats why every time I see an ‘atheist’ like Hutchinson with a suit on I smile to myself “enjoying yourself you dirty old bastard?!” yeah yeah I bet you are.
I don’t know if I agree with you. Immorality alone will never land someone in jail. Plus, your reasoning is flawed. If an atheist does good only to remain a free person, then the theist is also guilty of the same logic but on a grander scheme. The theist does good to keep out of jail and to avoid the wrath of God.
My good atheist friends are not just good friends they are truly good people doing things with no alterior motive: i.e. helping the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, listening to the silenced…all the things Christianity calls for but Christians (and other theists) do not necessary deliver on.
Your one example of a poor atheist does not sway the argument. I can present many examples where the same idea paints a negative view on Theists. During WWII Catholics in Germany called on the pope to relieve them of their obligation to the state. The Pope told them to “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s” and they did. The fear was not solely of jail or death, but enternal damnation or, at the very least, purgatory. God’s wrath creates slaves in some cases.
The atheists I know do not run nude in the forest or commit mass murder not because of reprieve but because they belong to species where there is a mutual understanding of civility. This is not fake or feigned in any way. This is real, unlike that of many theists who do good only to remain in God’s good graces and to avoid his wrath.
In short, everyone does what is best for themselves. Atheists also look to the future of their species. Theists look to the future after death. Which is a better set of logic?
Nope I dont agree with you Elijah. I was an atheist for a loong time. All my friends were atheists because I couldn’t stand the sight of anyone who even remotely said there was a God or spiritual forces in the universe. And the common atheist out there is not like the supper atheists you describe just like the common religious person isnt either. I must disagree with your statment that “atheists look at the future of their species” most atheists I know dont give a rats ass about the future they themselves are not going to be alive in. Thats the naked truth. Unless science comes to the rescue and they feel they’ll still be alive through some cyrogenic freezing!
Of course I know there are all kinds of atheists out there. Both the kinds you speak of and the kinds I am talking about. I think if we are honest we have to concede to that point. For me I am speaking from my own experience. Nobody is paying me to be on here and I sure dont have anything to gain by laying my life on here.
Now I’m not a Christian (or Jewish or hindu etc) I dont belong to any religion organized or unorganized. I merely understand there is a Source now. But I will say this: most of the organizations actually feeding the hungry in Africa and building wells in a village by village basis are not atheistic or secular humanist they are catholic , protestant and some orthodox (in the Ethipian regions). As a black American myself I have been to that area to get in touch with my roots.(And Im very dark skinned so I have also experienced lots of stuff in other ways but I wont get into that here) .I spent alot of time there and can tell you that I found no “Carl Sagan Society to help the poor” . sorry I wish I could say I did! And I am NOT a promtor of the religions. The people that were there (especially the Americans) were religous types. Im sure there are “Atheists for Africa” relief groups but I didnt run into them is all.
And if my “one example of a poor atheist” does not sway the argument neither does your example of a vague atheists sway the example. “Your good atheist friends” is a vague enough statement that could be used to justify any “good thing” you see? Most examples of referring to concrete examples are like that. Either they are not enough (as you claim mine is) or they are too vague and general as yours are. Lets say you know a thousand “good atheist” friends is that enough to sway the argument to a statistically significant number in a proper survey? No its not. And my point in mentioning my own friend was not to present some sort of conclusive argument. I am merely talking about my own experience.
Also in terms of “mutual civility” sorry I would call that more like “mutual balance of terror” (at least in some cases). I dont hurt your tribe because I know you can hurt mine etc. I find Scientific Agnostics like Margeret Atwood much more convincing then atheists. Atwood said “Listen I dont know if there is a God but Im not going to act as if their isnt. Im not going to act like an atheist.” (Toronto Word on the Street Festival 2003) What she meant is that being an atheist is a more existential choice. As Sartre said a “radically free choice” So free that if I, as an atheist DECIDE, that one day I will stop doing good to the rest of my tribesmen (and I speak figuritively for all gradations that a ‘tribe’ comes in on our planet) and can do it secretly enough (think Machevilli) so that my fellows dont know Im pulling a fast one on them, then heck there is no condemnation of my work from any source. In other words who cares? And if I have some sort of vestige of ‘conscience’ well forget that rotting religiously inspired (and maybe evolutionarilly inworked) old thing, Ill just crush it under my will. Thats what Im saying.
Hey I love atheists, I still have friends who are atheists. And if you want to know something I dont think of people in labels like that “theist” , “atheist” etc in my everyday life. Its only for the purpose of discussions like these that I use it.
As for atheists doing good you say: “This is not fake or feigned in any way” as you state. Nevermind the obvious question I could ask “how do you know?” (because that can go for everybody) –no Id like to say: hell Im not saying that THOSE atheists are actively hiding evil intentions etc. Perhaps I should clarify. I see atheists who have not awakened to what is allowable (to oneself) as an atheist and those who still like doing good because they are nice people. Those nice people though can at any time turn to my kind of atheist (the kind I was–please do not condemn me for it) if they want. Im saying there is nothing stopping them except their own existential decision. Also saying that you know atheists who do only good an NO theists or religious people who ever do any good would be wrong. You come close to saying that by dogmatically adding there are “many” theist and relgious types who never do any good. Did you count them? What is ‘many’ in a planet of billions.
Lets by honest my friend there are bad and good on both sides many and few etc.
But my main point is (and its a logical point that does not need to endlessly refer to outside empirical evidence to prove itself (ie its self evident like a math equation) is that when Im an atheist either a good one (and of course there are good guys who are atheists) or a bad one the atheist has no internal law he abides by to prevent him from changing if he wants. You might say ‘hey wait a theist doesnt either right? He only has fear of the ‘divine law’ big deal? Yes but at least he has THAT. You see? What did I have when I was an atheist? I had the outward law of my local government. And we know how that is working. People desire to avoid punishment and crime when its based on outward earthly and the idea of ‘divine’ authority. Hey I stole $120 from a cash register when I was 16 and they never caught me. But if you believe in a Divine –”where ya gonna go when He comes for ya” Im saying its a more efficient system of belief to reign in any potential evil I want to do. Of course there are incorrigible people on both sides, but the mass of humanity are not psychotic, thought they are more easily tempted when you have only earthly athority. You dont have to point to outside evidence to counter or back that point up (“ie I know lots of good lawyers they arent all crooks” etc) because one can just progress from ones on internal evidence (ie “yes Im a nice person but seriously who would know if I took that $150 now that the owner is in the back talking to my mom?”). And if an atheist doesnt have that ‘bent’ to his character (not temptable) it doesnt mean he cant acquire it without threat from some invisible diety. A religious person doesnt have that luxury. Of course there are religious types (not counting those who are just pretending) who do bad but they have a system to stop it and even confess and turn from it. They have this divine authority looking at them.
Listen I knoooow what that might sound like to an atheist. I was one for a long time. An atheist would say “hey your saying you need the fear of God to be good but I can be good because I want to” (yes and I would answer : “for as long as YOU want to, what will happen if you decide to go (secretly so as not to be caught by the police) bad? Will you be punished by the great Atheist God?” There is no such thing as the Atheist God of course. And yes I do have a view of the human race as not being able to be good indefinitely merely on the basis of continued radically free existential individual decisions to keep on “being good”. I have yet to meet an angelic person (religious, atheistic or even just a plain old theist like myself). I believe I dont have to prove that by citing endless examples of bad people because I too am human and know what it feels like to be tempted is all. I figure the rest of the species evolved like I did (unless you think like this neo-nazi group in the states said: white people are more highly evolved and blacks are lower on the evolutionary scale, their black (ie ape like) skin proves it.” But I dont want to gross you out with that type of person. I am fully convinced that you believe the human species (all of it) is equally evolved!
So you have to be religious to be actually good?–
You might say “yeah but I dont want to be religious!” Well neither do I. I said Im a theist. Not a Baptist or a Catholic or a Sikh for that matter. Its that which energized me to walk fair and square with others.
As for religious people I met more of them in poor African places than any atheists. Im not saying this to condemn atheists. And Im not saying it to uphold religous people! Im saying what I experienced just as you say you experienced but I am not presenting my experience as some sort of conclusive proof. Not at all. By the way I know more than “one atheist” but I could give a thousand examples and you could do that does not prove on. Also your statement of: “all the things Christianity calls for but Christians (and other theists) do not necessary deliver on.” needs to be clarified. If you mean all or even most Christians are merely clever devils out to wrought bad things on people I have to disagree. I have seen many of them and they are ok. Nope I am not one of them and I dont believe in their Mass or their preachers etc. But to condemn all or most of the Christian folk (or others) as one rotten group is an obvious faulty progression from premise to conclusion.
Actually, I could say that about all Americans because of their rep on the world scene currently. (Im not an American myself hope you are okay with us Canadians!). I know enough that there are Americans who are either republicans or democrats. Ive seen this in religious people. Just another tribe. Its would be extremely easy for me to say: “most americans are warmongers and even their feeble promoting of Gore is a lie, they have shown they dont care about the earth time and time again (my country has the pollution that flows over from NYC to prove it too).” But I refuse to say that and to lump them altogther.
However I do know exCatholics who are convinced of the ‘evil’ of the current catholic church because they had a miserable childhood under religous types who abused thier groups principles. I dont like arguments based on emotion. Im not accusing you of this because you sound intelligent, you understand that to condemn ALL or MOST of any group “X” is a logical fallacy.
On any account I really appreciate that you didnt ignore my comment but responded. I wish we could meet at a coffee shop and talk in person.
Finally in response to your satement:
“In short, everyone does what is best for themselves. Atheists also look to the future of their species. Theists look to the future after death. Which is a better set of logic?”
Atheists look to the future of their species? Really ? Forgive me but “who says”? Ive already talked about that above but now to your second part: “Theists look to the future after death” Huh? Did I say that? Im a theist and I look forward to BOTH the future of this species on our world (and others) as well as to any future after death. Its more like and/also rather than either/or. There is nothing in theism OR religion that says you cant want both. A dogmatic conlusion like your last statement is not a “set of logic” Sorry its not logical at all. Its passionate view of what atheists and nonatheists believe in your opinion. But logical? Hardly.
Its a myth that theists dont care about the future of this species. I care very much about the earth and our future as a tribe. As for religious people there are a whole boatload of scientists, geologists and others who care very much about the future and are religious. Or do you automatically assume that because one belives in an after life he by default only cares for that life? That is an obvious statment of error. Maybe a religious person who has misunderstood their religion but not one who didnt. Their own bible says “And God will destroy those who destroy the earth”. Just because there are corrupt cops on the Chicago police force does not mean that by default being a Chicago cop means you are corrupt.
The argument looks like this:
Chicago cops are corrupt
I am Chicago cop therefore I am corrupt.
Theists look (only) to the future after death
I am a theist therefore I look only to the future after death.
The first premise is faulty because it contains an untruth. Its is not logically impossible to be a theist and care about the future of the earth/species.
The better set of logic, to answer your question is one not based on faulty premises but rather:
There are atheists AND thiests who care about the future of the species/earth just like there are atheists AND theists who dont care either way.
We must not only respect the appearance of logic but its acutal application.
PS pardon my grammar and spelling –Im not great but Im getting better at it.
PPS Id like to add one thing: though we obviously disagree with each other my statements are about the arguments not about you. I do not bear any malice towards your person. As a matter of fact I am a bit jealous you have just a decent website. I want to make one myself and be able to talk on with people like we do hear. Ive been searching for a good deal. can you please tell me any good hosts that treat their customers well?
Hi its exatheist here again. sorry Elijah for putting on yet another entry on here. This is the second day Ive been on here (and other sites) and the second day Ive had net access– and Im surfing the net from work. The person in the next cubicle saw me writing on here and Ive just had a talk with the manager. I am not allowed on the net under threat of penalty (nice huh?) I need this job and eventually I will get internet at home but right now I cant afford it. I was looking forward to talking with you (and others on some other sites) about philosophy and so on. This is fun after all. I am writing because I am being moved to another (non net) cubicle. Please dont take any nonresponse from me on whatever you say in your reply to my latest (above) post in the wrong way, since I wont be able to read your reply and thus reply in turn. Sorry about that.
I will get net soon when I can and a website too I hope we will continue to talk at that time.
And yes Im a minimum wage slave right now. My parents have disowned me (long story)and now that Im not a free for all happy-go-lucky atheist anymore I have to start at the bottom legally (no more stealing).
(No that was not a low blow –I was not one of the good atheists and even the good atheists I would gleefully corrupt “wake up” to the world of michavellian pleasure you see. but no more!)
all the best to you
your friend exatheist
LIVE MAN WALKING